2. Determination

A. Although the argument of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court of first and second in the trial, the court of first instance was merged, but the court of second instance was sentenced to a fine and the imprisonment with prison labor. If each of the punishments of the court below is different, even if the argument of the court of appeal is combined in the appellate court, the appellate court can maintain each of the punishments declared by the court below, and it does not necessarily require a sentence of the same kind. Thus, the court of appeal did not reverse the judgment of the court below on the sole ground of the combination

B. The following facts are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant paid KRW 3 million, which is the full amount of damage to the first instance judgment; (c) the Defendant paid KRW 2.5 million, which is a part of the amount of damage to the criminal facts of the second instance judgment; and (d) the fact that the Defendant did not have any record of the same kind of crime are favorable to the Defendant.

However, most of the damages of the crime of the second instance was not paid by the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victims of each of the crimes of this case is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, considering the fact that there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below, and the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, each of the court below's punishments is too large and unfair. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench (Provided, That the part on “the injured party” of the first and sixth criminal facts of the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error of “the injured party D”, and thus, it is correct ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.