1 The remainder of the judgment of the court below, excluding the order for compensation for the original decision, shall be all reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. The defendant asserts that the decision of the court below is unfair because each punishment is too large, and the prosecutor asserts that the decision of the court of first instance is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, this Court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases against the lower judgment. Each of the lower judgment against the Defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed within the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed as the above reasons for reversal of authority, and the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (excluding the part concerning the order for compensation by the first instance judgment) without examining the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and it is again decided as follows after the pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of embezzlement) and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. Each of the crimes of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes is very heavy in the sense that each of the crimes of this case is the fraud of goods repeatedly committed against the majority of unspecified persons in that the defendant acquired a total of KRW 263 million from 20,000,000,000 from 20,000,000,000 won, and embezzled a vehicle owned by a female living together, with a large amount of victims, and in some of the crimes, the crime is very heavy in that it is the fraud of goods.

b)in addition,