The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four months) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

Since Article 32 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that "the punishment of accessories shall be mitigated to less than that of the principal offender," the accessories constitute a reason for the requisite mitigation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below determined the punishment for each crime of aiding and abetting fraud in the judgment of the court below which constitutes an accessory crime and did not reduce the law pursuant to the above provision. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

【Reasons for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] The summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 3

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for each type of crime

1. Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for aiding and abetting and mitigation (with respect to the crime of aiding and abetting by fraud)

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the Defendant, among the concurrent crimes, recognized all of the crimes of this case, is against the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the crime of aiding and abetting Fraud against the victim K with the largest punishment).

The amount of damage to the crime of aiding and abetting the fraud of this case is relatively small.

At the same time as a judgment becomes final and conclusive.