The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) In fact, the part of the machinery subject to sale of the instant case was set up a collateral for the creditor Daegu Bank for the creditor Daegu Bank, but was notified in advance to the employee in charge of Daegu Bank, and sold it to the victim.

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant was establishing a collateral for the creditor Daegu Bank among the total four compacters.

2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the two parties argued that the remainder of the compact 2, for which the said right to collateral security was not established, became the subject matter of the said sales contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 25, 26, supra). The above right to collateral security was not established on the part of the hyst and various scrap irons, and the victim did not have all the objects except the hyst of the said machinery. Therefore, the amount of fraud of the instant case is more than 5 million won, excluding the value of the parts owned by the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that all of the facts charged of the instant case was guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of one-year imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the Daegu District Court on April 19, 2016, on the grounds of fraud, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 24, 2016. As such, the above crime of fraud, etc., for which judgment became final and conclusive, and the instant crime of fraud, etc., are determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, as well as the case of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained in this respect.

except that.