A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

2. The grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio are examined ex officio prior to the judgment.

With respect to paragraph (2) of the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to indictment with the content of adding the facts charged alternatively, as stated below (the reasons for the judgment in multiple ways) as stated in Paragraph (2) of the facts charged in this case, and the court permitted it, and the court found the defendant guilty of the facts charged alternatively added as follows, the remaining guilty portion of the judgment of the court below in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act can no longer be maintained.

3. As such, the court below's decision is reversed ex officio in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's grounds for appeal, and it is again decided as follows, inasmuch as the court below found the defendant guilty of the selective facts charged which became the object of the trial only at this court, since it is not necessary to separately determine the selective facts charged which were the object of the trial at the court below.

[The reason for the judgment used in multi-level] The defendant who committed a crime was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four months at the Seoul Western District Court on October 11, 2018, and confirmed on October 19, 2018.

1. From July 2015 to October 6, 2016, the Defendant stated that “Around July 6, 2015, 2015, the Defendant was in custody of approximately KRW 1.9 billion in the passbook in the face of the Gu, and the head of the Tong is seized, but the Defendant would pay back immediately if he/she lends money.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not hold approximately KRW 1.9 billion deposits, and the Defendant bears approximately KRW 7,00,000 separately from several loan companies, and the above obligation is overdue.