The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (amounting to KRW 6 million) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny, etc. at the Suwon Giwon on September 28, 2016, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 6, 2016, and the Defendant committed the instant crime which the lower court found guilty prior to the final and conclusive judgment.

As above, in the crime for which judgment became final and the instant crime are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a punishment shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and equity in cases where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not consider it is impossible to maintain it as it is.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

On September 28, 2016, the first head of the lower court’s criminal facts that the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor, such as habitual larceny, etc., from a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on September 28, 2016, which became final and conclusive on December 6, 2016.

Except for the addition of “the judgment of the court below”, the description in the corresponding column of the court below is as follows.

In accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, they are quoted as it is.

Summary of Evidence

The gist of this Court’s evidence is as stated in the corresponding column of the court below’s judgment, except for the addition of “1.1 Defendant’s oral statement” to the column of the evidence.

In accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, they are quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 15-2 (1) 1 of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage by Telecommunications Fraud and Refund of Damage Resulting from Crime, Article 15-2 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act, Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Reduction of assistance under the Criminal Act.