We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

Seized articles 1 to 5, 11.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment of one year, confiscation, additional collection of 1,400,000 won, and second instance: imprisonment of six months) of the original court is unreasonable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment.

The court of the first instance decided to consolidate each appeal case against the original judgment.

However, since each of the judgments of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of these crimes must be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act in the event that it is combined and ruled simultaneously.

Therefore, the decision of the court below cannot be upheld as it is.

3. If so, the court below's decision is reversed in its entirety under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

[Dao-written judgment] Criminal facts and the summary of evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are all the same as stated in the corresponding column of the original judgment. Therefore, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 60 (1) 3 of the same Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The main sentence of Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Confiscated Narcotics;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. are as follows: (a) the defendant recognized the crime and repented the wrong facts; (b) the defendant did not have the same criminal records; and (c) cooperation in the investigation of narcotics crimes through the offender is favorable to sentencing

However, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years and four months due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the execution of the sentence is complete.