A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A. In regard to the judgment of the court below of first instance, a crime of fraud is established by remitting the amount of damage from the victims to Q and S passbook, and a part of the amount of money acquired through the passbook in the name of the defendant cannot be punished separately because it constitutes an act after the crime of false punishment.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

B. Judgment of the second instance: Unfair sentencing on the judgment of the court below

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the determination of ex officio.

With respect to the judgment of the court of first and second instances that sentenced the defendant for one year and two years and six months of imprisonment, only the defendant filed an appeal, and both the above two appeals cases were combined in the trial. The first and second crimes against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the first and second crimes against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment shall be imposed at the same time in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Thus, each

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant still is arguing for misapprehension of legal principles, and this point is examined below.

B. As to the misapprehension of the legal principle, the facts charged against the defendant committed a crime under the premise that the defendant conspireds with the other accomplices, including A, in order to divide them into one's own roles, and, by deceiving the victim U and V, he was involved in the fraud by receiving each damaged amount from the victims through a passbook in Q and S's name as a payment for stock price. The defendant mentioned the process from the receipt of a re-transfer to the withdrawal after the receipt of the re-transfer of the facts charged is merely an act of sharing the part of the other accomplices who participated in the execution and specific role according to the whole criminal plan and the degree

The defendant's assertion of legal principles is not accepted.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.