A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence 12 through 12.

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant (the first and second original judgment) recognized all of the instant crimes at the trial court, and reflects the depth of the instant crimes, the first offender, family relationship, etc., the respective types of punishment of the lower judgment (the first lower judgment: imprisonment of one and half years, confiscation, additional collection, and the second lower judgment: imprisonment of two months) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed a crime against five victims, the defrauded amount to KRW 1229 million, and the victim did not agree with the victim, the prosecutor (the first instance judgment) of the first instance judgment (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) of the first instance judgment is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. On the judgment of the first instance court, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the second instance, and the court decided to hold the above two appeals jointly. Each of the crimes against the defendant in the judgment of the first and second instances is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the first and second instances cannot be maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above is reversed all the judgment of the court below without examining the Defendant and the prosecutor’s respective arguments on unfair sentencing, and the following judgment is rendered through pleadings.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and the summary of evidence acknowledged by this court and the summary of evidence are the same as the statements in each corresponding column of the first judgment and the second judgment, except that "the partial statement of the defendant" in "2019Da3138" and "2020 Go-Ma52" are applied to "the court statement of the defendant at the trial of the defendant" among the summary of evidence of the first judgment. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 225 and 30 of the Criminal Act and Articles 225 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, and the choice of punishment, respectively;