A. On November 10, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition of appeal with respect to the lower judgment, and failed to file the appellate brief within the period for submission of the lawful appellate brief even after being served with the notification of receipt of the receipt of the trial record on February 11, 2015, and the petition of appeal also does not contain any reasons for appeal.

After the appeal case against the lower judgment and the appeal case against the lower judgment against the second instance judgment were consolidated on February 10, 2015, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that there was an error of mistake of facts (at least ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspension of execution) and unfair sentencing in the first instance judgment through the “written summary of pleading” on April 1, 2015, by the Defendant’s defense counsel. However, the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that there was an error of mistake of facts (at least ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspension of execution) in the first instance judgment, but it cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal since

B. (1) Regarding the judgment of the second instance, at the time of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant was making an investment in the set-up and exchange business of constructing a new building in the Philippines. However, there was only the fact that the Defendant asked N to identify the general investors who will pay 5% interest per month and requested N to identify the general investors, and there was no deception of the victimO in collusion with N or S.

(2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) of the judgment of the court of the second instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant filed each appeal against the lower judgment, and the lower court decided to jointly examine each appeal against the Defendant on February 10, 2015.

Each crime of the judgment below shall be sentenced to one punishment within the scope of the term of punishment for concurrent crimes aggravated pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, all parts of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, except the compensation order, against the defendant, can not be reversed.

However, even if the judgment of the court below has such reasons for reversal, the defendant's allegation of mistake in the second instance judgment is erroneous.