The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months) is too unreasonable.

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

A. The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below in accordance with the consolidated trial of the court of the first instance, and this court decided to hold a joint trial of the above two appeals cases. As to each crime against the defendant in the judgment of the court below, one punishment should be pronounced in accordance with the former part of Article 37 and Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any more.

B. Of the judgment of the first instance court, determination on the number of offenses against the Defendant is 1) Where the same victim has repeatedly committed the same kind of crime under the single and continuous criminal intent in property crimes, such as fraud, etc., each of the crimes may constitute a single comprehensive crime.

However, whether each crime constitutes a single crime

Whether a concurrent crime is a concurrent crime

As a result, the application of a special law that requires the aggravated punishment on the basis of the amount of damage is not only different, but also has a significant impact on the defendant until the judgment of sentencing and the prescription of prosecution and the res judicata. Therefore, the judgment should be made carefully.

In particular, the unity and continuity of the criminal intent were the method and mode of the individual crime, motive of the crime, time interval between each crime, and whether there was a interruption or renewal of the criminal intent, i.e., whether there was a subsequent crime, while the use of the same opportunity or relationship continues.

The lower court, based on logical and empirical rules, should reasonably determine whether there are circumstances to see, etc., based on a detailed basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11318, Oct. 27, 2016). 2), based on the first instance court’s judgment, shall be based on the first instance judgment from January 2, 2013 to August 31, 2016.