All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 3 million, and the second instance judgment: the fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, this Court tried to examine the two cases of appeal by combining the two cases of appeal against the defendant, and the crimes of each case deliberated in the trial by the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in its entirety.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the above reasons for ex officio reversal exist, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The substance of the facts charged and the gist of the evidence admitted by the court is as follows: (a) except when the “1. Defendant’s testimony” in the summary of each evidence is changed to “the Defendant’s legal statement in the original trial on 1.1.)”, and thus, it is identical to each corresponding column of the original judgment. As such, it

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment against the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act in the Labor House Detention Act appears to be that the defendant recognized his mistake and against himself, the damage is not more severe, and the visibility was returned to the victim C without any damage, and a total of approximately KRW 580,000,000 to the victim G, which seems to have been restored to a considerable portion of the damage suffered by the victims.

On the other hand, the defendant is punished for larceny in 2007 and property damage in 201.