Of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, each of the crimes of the 2013 senior group 1951, 2521, 2530, 2781, 3526.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the sentence of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes in the second instance case (the imprisonment with prison labor for two years, 2521, 2530, 2781, and 3526) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Before determining the above assertion of the Defendant’s ex officio, the judgment of the court below that the Defendant appealed was consolidated in the trial. Among the above, each of the crimes in the first instance judgment and the judgment of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the first instance is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a concurrent crime under Article 38 of the Criminal Act must be sentenced to one punishment at the same time. In this regard, the part of the crimes in the first instance judgment and the judgment of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the first instance cannot be maintained any more.

B. In full view of the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it, etc. on the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the case of 2013 high group460 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and that the Defendant again committed this part of the same contents without being aware of, even though he had been under suspension of execution due to the crime of forging private documents in the judgment of the court below, etc., which are favorable to the Defendant. The crime of this part is planned to commit the crime by forging the lease contract and by deceiving it, and the crime of deception by deceiving it. The amount of fraud is up to 45,500,000 won, and the amount of fraud is not agreed with the victim of the crime of this case; the details and contents of the crime of this case; the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the sentence on this part of the judgment of the court of second instance

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is justified.