The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred-five days of detention under the original judgment after appeal shall be included in the punishment for the crime No. 1 of the first instance judgment.

In a case where the appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal and included the period of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance in the sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, if there are two or more sentence of the court of first instance, it should clarify which sentence should be included in the sentence. According to the records, the court below dismissed the defendant's appeal and did not state that "one hundred-five days out of the number of days of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance" while "one hundred-five days out of the number of days of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance" and did not state that one of the two sentence should be included in the calculation of the sentence

Therefore, without determining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is deemed sufficient to be judged based on the records of trial and the evidence examined by the court of first instance, and thus, a party member is to be directly decided in accordance with Article 396(1) of

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant did not have the intent to acquire money by deceiving the victim's net distress as stated in Paragraph (1) at the time of the first trial; however, even though the above victim voluntarily lent money to assist the defendant's business, the first instance court convicted the defendant of this point. The first instance court erred in misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Second, at the time of the first trial, the defendant agreed to reimburse the victim's damage amount and the first instance court agreed to the compensation of the damage amount and the first instance court, and the last period has passed since the crime was committed, and the decision of punishment imposed by the first instance court is too unreasonable.

However, according to various evidence duly admitted by the first instance court after the examination of evidence, the first instance court can sufficiently recognize the criminal facts of this case, which are judged by the first instance court, and there is no illegality like the theory of litigation in the process of fact-finding of the first instance court, even though examining the records, there is no other error like the theory of litigation in the process of fact-finding of the same kind and quality of this case, and the next defendant is more than twice a criminal record of the crime of this case, and there are various circumstances where the first instance court conditions for the punishment which the first instance court lawfully investigated, such as the motive, means, result, degree of damage, the age of the defendant, environment, and circumstances after the crime, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant, the determination of the sentence imposed by the first instance court against the defendant is acceptable and it cannot be deemed unfair, therefore, the appeal of the defendant cannot

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. 105 days out of the number of days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the punishment of the first instance judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)