The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The seizure of articles 1 to 1.

1. The grounds of appeal (unfair punishment) asserts that the Defendant is unjust because the sentence of the lower court (short-term 10 months of imprisonment and maximum 1 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the said sentence of the lower court is too uneased.

2. It is apparent that the Defendant, who was born on May 23, 200 and was sentenced to an irregular term of punishment by falling under “juvenile” as provided by Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time the lower judgment was declared, but it does not constitute a juvenile under the age of 19 at the time of sentencing in the trial.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining each of the grounds for reversal of authority, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] The facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting a crime in the original judgment, and the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the original judgment. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act does not have any other criminal history against the defendant, but has been in charge of collecting and remitting cash in the course of the so-called so-called "Singing" crime, and where the defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 130 million in total to five victims through six times, there is insufficient data to deem that the defendant had a conclusive recognition of the method of committing another mos and the content of harm and injury notification. In addition, the defendant's age, career, family relation relation, motive, circumstance, and all of the reasons for sentencing were considered.