All appeals by the defendant against the judgment below are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that each of the judgment below rendered by the defendant (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant regarding the consolidation were rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against all the above judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance decided to jointly examine the above appeal cases. However, each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, which became final and conclusive on August 22, 2014 and July 31, 2015, should be sentenced separately to both the crime of the judgment of the court of first instance and the crime of the judgment of the court of second instance that of the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, respectively. Thus, the consolidation itself does not constitute a ground for reversal ex officio.

B. As to the judgment of the first instance court, it is recognized that the Defendant is obliged to simultaneously consider the equity with the case of each crime of fraud, which became final and conclusive on August 22, 2014 and July 31, 2015, when determining the Defendant’s punishment against the victim D.

However, the crime of the first instance case is a false statement that the defendant, who did not have ordered the government-funded construction work, would distribute profits by the government-funded construction work, belongs to the victim D, and the crime is not good in light of the form of deception.

After taking a level of KRW 89 million on one occasion from the victim D, the Defendant once, and once again acquired KRW 140 million through the same method.

The Defendant did not agree with the victim D up to the trial of the party, and only recovered damage of KRW 44 million before reaching the trial of the court below (172 pages of the evidence record of the 2017 senior group 533 cases). The above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, etc.