Of the part against the defendant of the first judgment, the part excluding the rejection of the compensation order and the application for compensation order.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in the case of the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four years and six months, and the second judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months) of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the part of rejection of compensation order and compensation order among the part against the defendant of the judgment excluding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance

3. Thus, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the rejection of a compensation order and an order for compensation among the parts of the judgment of the court of second instance excluding the rejection of a compensation order and an order for compensation order as seen earlier, and the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the rejection of a compensation order and an order for compensation ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act excluding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance

[C] The facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence acknowledged by the court and the summary thereof are as follows. Of the facts constituting an offense in the first instance judgment, the phrase “criminal facts” as stated in Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is amended as follows. The phrase “15 million won” as stated in the second instance judgment is the same as stated in the corresponding column of the first and second lower judgment, except where the phrase “14,625,000 won” as stated in Article 32 of the first instance judgment is amended as “14,625,00 won.”

“2. The event of a forged real estate lease agreement under the name of Q, and the fraud against the victim CX (the Defendant of the loan holder DR) is the second floor of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U.S. Building around March 4, 2009.