The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (one year of suspended sentence in four months of imprisonment) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. The court below, ex officio, found the instant case to have been tried through a simple trial and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, but the court below revoked the order of the court below that decided to judge the instant case by a simple trial procedure pursuant to Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act and rendered a new examination of evidence, thereby making it impossible to maintain the judgment below.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 11 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate deaf-mutes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant, with the reason of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, was a male deaf-mute, who was aware of the sentencing through a video call display method, committed as if the victim was a mother female, and deceiving the victim as if he were to marry with the victim, thereby deceiving 1,724,00 won in total. In light of the criminal law of this case, the Defendant’s crime is considerably poor.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the law.

The Defendant repaid 4 million won in the lower court, and made efforts to recover damage, such as repayment of additional 2.85 million won in the first instance.

The defendant has no criminal record of the same kind.

(b) other.