Two years of imprisonment.

A. Defendant 1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to fraud as indicated in the judgment of the first instance court is sufficient to prove that the Defendant was a co-principal of the crime of fraud, such as the statement in the first instance judgment of the lower court, 2017 High Court Decision 298Da2988.

It is insufficient to view it.

2) The sentence of the lower court No. 1 with respect to the sentencing of the first instance court (two years and nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the non-guilty portion of the first instance judgment, the Defendant can fully recognize the fact that he embezzled the separated substance as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 9 months, and the second instance judgment: the fine of 3 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. On the first instance judgment, the Defendant and the Prosecutor filed an appeal against the second instance judgment, and the said court decided to jointly deliberate on the said appeal cases.

Each of the judgments of the court below which found the defendant guilty is guilty of each of the crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained as they are.

B. According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to three months imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act at the Seoul Central District Court on November 16, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 27, 2018.

The crime of the second instance judgment against the defendant and the crime of the violation of the said Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which became final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity with the case of a judgment under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the second instance cannot be maintained as it is.

(c)

There is a reason for such an ex officio reversal.