A. The punishment of Defendant 1’s original adjudication (eight months of imprisonment, one year of imprisonment) and the punishment of the second adjudication (two months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

(b) The form of the first original ruling of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Each appeal was filed after the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance rendered on the defendant with respect to the reversal of ex officio in accordance with the consolidated proceedings (the first and second court of the judgment of the court of first instance). This court decided to hold the above two appeals together for deliberation.

However, among the judgment of the court below in the first instance against the defendant, the crime of the 2017 Highest 4427 Highest 2017 Highest 4594 Highest 2017 Highest 5385 Highest 5385 Highest 201 and the crime of the 4 and 5 Highest 500 Highest 5385 Highest 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 37th 1st 201 of the Criminal Act are in a concurrent relationship under Article 38(1) of

Therefore, the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of second instance can not be maintained as they are.

However, among the judgment below of the court below of first instance, the crime of the 2017 Highest 3450 case and the crime of the 1,2, and 3 of the 2017 Highest 5385 case are in the concurrent relationship between the crime of fraud for which the judgment was made on July 29, 2016 and the crime of the 37 latter part of the Criminal Act, which was decided on July 29, 2016. Thus, despite the consolidated examination decision of this court, the above part shall be sentenced separately to the crime of the 2nd judgment as to each of the above crimes. Thus, the above part shall not be reversed ex officio on the sole ground

The following is about the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor on this part is unfair.

3. Determination of the unfair assertion of sentencing (Article 8 months of imprisonment in the judgment of the court of first instance) that the defendant recognized and again did not commit a crime.

It is reasonable to consider the equity in the case of a judgment at the same time with the case of fraud which became final and conclusive on July 29, 2016.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime.