All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the defendant did not have the intention of regradation (misunderstanding of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance), and the punishment (the judgment of the court of first instance: the fine of 1.5 million won; the fine of 700,000 won: the fine of the court of second instance) imposed on the

The judgment of the court below 1 and 2 on the grounds of unfair sentencing) 2.

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the first and second court rendered a separate judgment to the defendant as the Incheon District Court 2013DaMa1694 and the Incheon District Court 2013Ma1702, which decided not to apply the case of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. The court below decided not to apply the case of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act by filing an appeal against each judgment of the court below. The first and second court's judgment with respect to each of the crimes against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the sentence of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act shall be determined within the scope of punishment determined by applying the case of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment below against the defendant is no longer maintained

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. According to the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant has obtained property benefits equivalent to the oil value by joining the victim claiming the oil value as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.