Defendant .

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the first instance court: one year and six months, and the second instance court; the second instance: imprisonment for two months, the third instance court: imprisonment for two months, and the fourth instance: imprisonment for two months and one month: imprisonment for one month) is too unreasonable.

(b)the sentence imposed on the Defendant by the Prosecutor Nos. 2, 3 is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the judgment of the court below was rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 against the defendant, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 2 and 3, and this court decided to hold a joint trial against the defendant. The crimes of the judgment of the court of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court below, except the dismissed part of the application for compensation order, cannot be maintained.

In addition, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Ulsan District Court on February 20, 2014 and was released on June 30, 2014 and the parole period passed on August 27, 2014 during the execution of the sentence at the Ulsan District Court. As such, each of the crimes in the judgment of the first instance court (the crime of fraud around July 4, 2017 and the crime of fraud around July 12, 2017) constitutes a repeated crime committed within three years after the execution of the sentence was completed. Since the lower court, although the Defendant had been sentenced to one year of punishment for fraud at the Ulsan District Court on February 20, 2014 and was released on June 30, 2014, the lower court erred by omitting the aggravated punishment as prescribed in Article 35 of the Criminal Act with respect to each of the crimes committed by the Defendant during the repeated crime, the lower court’s judgment is no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the remaining parts of the judgment below, excluding the rejection of the application for compensation order, are reversed ex officio as seen earlier, and thus, the judgment of the defendant and the prosecutor is unreasonable.