Defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for each crime in the judgment of the first instance, and the second instance for three years and six months.

The defendant returned to the court prior to the remand, and all of the defendant withdrawn the assertion of mistake.

Each sentence of the original court against the accused (the first instance court: the imprisonment of three years and six months, and the second instance: the imprisonment of six months) is too unreasonable.

According to the records of ex officio determination, on November 21, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to a suspension of six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court (the crime of June 2005), and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 29, 2006 (hereinafter “(i) and March 31, 2006 at the Seoul Central District Court (the crime of fraud from November 2003 to May 2005) for two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 207 (hereinafter “second year”), and on July 8, 201, at the Government District Court of Seoul Central District Court (the crime from December 207 to January 1, 2008) for the crime of fraud (the name of the court below). < Amended by Act No. 10314, Nov. 21, 200; Act No. 10508, Mar. 14, 2007>

On July 18, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced one year to a suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment (the crime from December 2004 to February 2, 2005) and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2013 (hereinafter “third-1 criminal records”) (hereinafter “third-1 criminal records”) was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months at the Seoul Central District Court on January 21, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2010 (hereinafter “the revoked criminal records”) but the decision became final and conclusive on January 29, 2010.

Each such recognition.

Therefore, there is a relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between ①, ②, ③-1, and ② the crimes in the second instance judgment (201, the second instance judgment), and ④ the respective crimes in the judgment of the first instance court (2011, the second instance judgment, the second instance judgment), which have become final and conclusive. As such, there is a relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.