A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though there was no intention to defraud the Defendant by deception, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(A) The Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the injury under Article 2-1 (a) and (b), (4), and (6) of the 2018 Highest 506 Case at the fourth trial of the appellate trial. However, since all the remainder of the charges except Article 2-2 (b) are recognized during the 9th trial of the appellate court, the Defendant did not separately determine the remainder except for the part concerning Article 2-2-2 (b). In addition, during the 13th trial of the appellate court, the Defendant withdrawn the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the case of "

Each sentence of the lower judgment on unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for the first and second crimes as indicated in the Decision 2018 Highest 506, the third through 10 crimes as indicated in the Decision 2018 Highest 506, the third through 2018 Highest 506, and the second instance judgment: the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and 2018 Highest 8 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The prosecutor of Amendments to Bill of Indictment No. 2-A as stated in the first instance judgment.

The detailed statement Nos. 1 and 2 of the crime list Nos. 1 and 2 on each of the three diseases in the Republic of Korea was changed to 12-year two diseases in the Republic of Korea, and the subject of the judgment by the appellate court was changed to 12-year two diseases in the Republic of Korea. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the above crime list Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be maintained any longer.

However, since the first instance court deemed the crime No. 2 and No. 1 as stated in the judgment of the court below, which contain the crime No. 1 and No. 2, as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced to a single punishment, the part concerning the crime No. 1 and No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance