We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence (the first instance court: the imprisonment of August and the second instance court: the imprisonment of June) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, this Court tried at a concurrent hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses committed by the judgment of the court below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus a single sentence is to be rendered pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed ex officio, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for facts constituting an offense, Articles 97 and 30 of the Telecommunications Business Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent offenders committed each of the crimes of this case, even though the defendant had already been punished twice due to the same kind of crime, at the same time, despite the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, with a large number of victims, and total damage amounting to KRW 80,000,000, the mobile phone transferred by the defendant through the opening of the defendant was used for the crime of fraud, and the fact that the defendant committed part of the crime of the second instance on the part of the crime

On the other hand, the defendant.