All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each of the original judgments (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, this Court decided to jointly examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. On the other hand, all the offenses committed by the court below against the defendant are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

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

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are all the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case and appears to repent his mistake, and that the economic situation of the defendant is not good.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed in spite of the defendant's intention or ability to pay the price, and the defendant is provided with high-priced share and security at the main point, which is not good quality of crime due to economic difficulties, and the defendant is a fraud.