The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months and by a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and fines for 300,000 won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months on April 3, 2015 with respect to occupational embezzlement, etc. in the Jinyang Branch Branch of the Jinyang Branch of the District Court, and that the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2015. Since the crime in the judgment of the lower court is in a concurrent relationship between the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc. for which judgment has already become final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment in consideration of equity and the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and in this respect, the lower

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows: “The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months on April 3, 2015 with prison labor for occupational embezzlement, etc. in the senior part of the criminal facts constituting the crime; the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2015; and “1.1. The defendant’s trial statement” was added in the preceding part of the summary of the evidence; and “1.1. the defendant’s trial statement” was added in the last part; and “1.1. The defendant’s trial statement was the same as each corresponding part of the judgment of the court below; thus, it is cited pursuant to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 89-2 Subparag. 1 of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 12684, May 28, 2014); Article 84(2) of the former Military Service Act (amended by Act No. 11849, Jun. 4, 2013) regarding criminal facts.