All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and 2 months with prison labor for 4 months) declared by the original court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, this Court tried by combining the appellate cases of the judgment of the court of first instance and the appellate cases of the judgment of the court of second instance. Each of the offenses against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be punished with a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

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

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is the same as that of the judgment below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. From among concurrent offenders, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act include: (a) the defendant reflects his/her own crime; (b) the total amount of damage was not much; (c) the court below agreed with some victims; and (d) there was an additional agreement with some victims in the trial; and (c) there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine for the defendant; and (d) the majority of the victims of the crime of price fraud; and (e) the defendant was a majority of the victims of the crime of goods payment fraud; and (e) the defendant was in probation period after receiving juvenile protective disposition against