The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unfilled and unfair (the prosecutor expressed his opinion that the defendant should be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years). 2. We examine ex officio prior to the decision on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment by adding some of the facts charged against the defendant as stated in the following facts, and the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained as the case is changed by this court's permission.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is again decided after pleading, without examining the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] The Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Gangnam Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Chuncheon District Court on June 10, 2014, and was sentenced to three months of imprisonment for fraud at the Gangnam Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Chuncheon District Court on July 15, 2014. On August 27, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for fraud at the District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Gwangju District Court on November 27, 2014, and was sentenced to a fine of one million won for fraud at the Busan District Court on November 27, 2014. On December 23, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for fraud from the Suwon Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Suwon District Court on December 30, 2015 to be habitually sentenced to imprisonment for fraud on October 30, 2015 and completed the previous prison sentence on December 10, 2015.

[Criminal facts] 2016 Highest 34

1. On December 19, 2015, the Defendant had the same attitude as paying the price even if he/she received alcoholic beverages from the injured party, even if he/she received alcoholic beverages and alcohol from the injured party, at around 03:20, the Defendant had the same attitude that he/she would pay the price. In this regard, the Defendant had the same attitude as paying the price from the injured party, such as Scarchis Co., Ltd. 2 C, 8 C, and 1 Rachis.