All judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence 1.

On July 14, 2013, the accused of the fraud part of July 14, 2013, the main point of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding and unfair sentencing decision) misunderstanding of facts (the case of the 2013 Highest 503 case) misunderstanding of facts (the accused of the fraud part) helps the owner provide the taxi cost. The accused helps the owner to believe it and hold the taxi in order to interview the crew, and there was no intention to commit fraud of

On July 14, 2013, the Defendant had no knowledge of his thief, who was abandoned, that he stolen the bicycle.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (the first judgment of the court of appeal: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, confiscation and the second judgment of the court of appeal: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to judgment.

This court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases of the first instance judgment of the second instance judgment against the defendant, and on the other hand, each of the offenses committed in the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is a concurrent offense 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 offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so in this regard, the first and second lower judgment shall be reversed.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court on July 14, 2013 by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. In other words, the victim U was the owner of the mother port where the Defendant was carrying the Defendant at the police station and the Defendant was the owner of the passenger ship at the mother port, but the Defendant claimed that the Defendant was to receive the taxi expenses by communicating the owner of the passenger ship with the currency prior to boarding the taxi. However, unlike the assertion that the Defendant was to receive the taxi expenses, the owner of the passenger ship was the Defendant.