Two years of imprisonment.

A. The sentence sentenced to the defendant (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for three years and the second judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles against the Defendant is the Act on Special Cases concerning Forfeiture and Restoration of Corruption Property (hereinafter “Corruption Property Confiscation Act”).

(2) The sentence of the original judgment of the court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) under Article 6(1) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below against the defendant for ex officio determination was rendered, and the defendant or prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance except for the compensation order among the judgment of the court of second instance and the judgment of the court of second instance. The court of second instance decided to hold concurrent hearings. Each of the offenses against the defendant is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles related to the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, and we will first examine this below.

B. Examining the legal principles related to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles and the evidence duly examined by the court below in light of the facts admitted by the court below, it is justifiable that the first instance court did not separately sentence the Defendant a penalty for collection under Article 6(1) of the Act on Forfeiture of

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. As seen earlier, there exists a ground for ex officio reversal against the Defendant. Thus, without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing on the Defendant’s judgment and the prosecutor’s first instance judgment, Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.