The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and the second instance court: one year) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to determining ex officio.

This court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases of the first instance judgment of the second instance judgment against the defendant, and on the other hand, each of the offenses committed in the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so in this regard, the first and second lower judgment shall be reversed.

3. As such, the first and second judgment of the court below are reversed without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the first and second judgment of the court below are all reversed, and the following is again decided upon through pleading.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of the facts constituting the crime of this case and the defendant's summary of the evidence are the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the

(다만 제2원심판결 제2면 제1행의 “tit시”는 기록에 비추어 “샷시”의 오기임이 명백하므로, 형사소송규칙 제25조 제1항에 의하여 이를 정정하는 것으로 경정한다). 법령의 적용

1. Relevant Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 355(1) and 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of embezzlement), the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime

1. Among concurrent offenders, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 38, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant recognized all of his/her crimes and is in depth against him/her, and that the defendant has no criminal history other than being punished for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.