All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and the imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below No. 2, among the facts charged in this case, found the Defendant guilty of larceny of KRW 30,000,000,000,000, KRW 7,000,000, KRW 300,000,000 among the facts charged in this case, and found the Defendant guilty of larceny of KRW 30,00,00,000. The prosecutor did not appeal the part not appeal for the aforementioned reasons. Thus, in accordance with the indivisible principle of appeal, the part of the Defendant was found guilty as well as the part of the judgment of the court, but this part was already excluded from the object of attack and defense, and thus, this court cannot decide up to that part (see Supreme Court Decisions 204Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without merit.

3. We examine ex officio the reasons for appeal prior to the judgment.

The first and second judgment against the defendant was rendered, and the prosecutor and the defendant filed an appeal against it, and the court decided to jointly examine the two appeals cases.

Each crime of the first and second judgment against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the first and second judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the prosecutor sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. on December 22, 2016 from the Youngcheon District Court’s territorial support on the first instance judgment, which became final and conclusive on April 6, 2017, regarding the facts charged in the first instance judgment, and Article 37 and Article 39 of the Criminal Act are applied to the case.