A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

2. The majority of the victims are the sum of the defraudeds, the sum of the defraudeds seems to be a considerable letter, and the fact that there is a record of punishment for the same kind of crime is disadvantageous.

However, in full view of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant made a confession of all the instant crimes and reflects his mistake in depth, and that part of the damage is deemed to have been recovered, and that after being punished by a fine due to the crime of occupational embezzlement prior to about 10 years, it appears that he had been engaged in a relatively faithful social life, and other circumstances such as the motive, background, means and method of the instant crime, the situation before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s age, character, behavior, career, and environment, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, they are quoted as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 347(1) (a), 356, and 355(2) (a) of the Criminal Act for the crime and the choice of punishment, respectively, Articles 347(1), 356, and 355(2) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in full view of the various circumstances prior to the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act.