All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Article 1: 1. and 2. and 3 months of imprisonment with prison labor) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the arguments were combined in the trial. Each of the crimes that the judgment of the court below rendered are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that sentenced a separate punishment for each of the above crimes cannot be maintained in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the sentencing of the defendant on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows through the pleading.

[Discied Judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court and summary of evidence are the same as that stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted as it is 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. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes;

1. The basic area (one to four years) of types 2 (not less than 100 million won, and less than 500 million won), the scope of recommendation types, general frauds; and

2. The fact that the amount of deception obtained by deception is a large amount of 22.5 million won in total, and that the victims have not repaid their damage is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected against the defendant, the defendant paid 6 million won to the victim F in the trial, and the fact that the defendant did not have the same criminal record is favorable to the defendant.

The age, character and conduct, environment, and environment of the defendant in these circumstances.