The remaining parts of the judgment of the first instance, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, and the second judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Article 1: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor and 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The first instance judgment case and the second instance judgment case against the defendant were consolidated in the judgment of the court below ex officio. Each of the above combined cases against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion on unfair sentencing, and all remaining parts and the second judgment except the rejection of the application for compensation order among the first judgment and the second judgment are reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the entries of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Among concurrent crimes, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act recognizes the defendant as a crime; circumstances favorable to the defendant, other than the suspension of indictment due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; the fact that the defendant has no specific penal power in addition to the suspension of indictment due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; the total amount of fraud exceeds 500 million won; partial damages have been repaid; however, the degree of recovery is not much significant if the total damages have been incurred (the total amount claimed by the defense counsel of the defendant is approximately KRW 130 million); and the fact that there is no special change of circumstances in the trial at a disadvantage against the defendant; and other circumstances, such as the defendant’s age, character