The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. The fact that the judgment amount obtained by deception is large and has not been restored for a long time is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in light of the following: (a) the means and methods of deception in this case are not deemed to be very poor; (b) the Defendant appears to be against the view of all the crime in this case when it comes to the trial; (c) the Defendant has agreed with the victim only smoothly; and (d) the equity between the case of the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act and the case of the crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act, the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

【Reason used in multi-level judgment】 Facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence recognized by this court and summary of evidence are as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except where “1. Defendant’s trial statement is added to “1. Defendant’s trial statement” as stated in the first head, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the reason for reversal prior to the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is