The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's mistake of facts (as the defendant was entrusted with the sale of shares by J, the representative director of I of the corporation I, and the victim G and H sold the shares by explaining the intent of J as stated in the judgment below, there is no criminal intent to acquire by fraud) and unfair sentencing

B. Prosecutor’s unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on November 28, 2008 to be sentenced to imprisonment with labor for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on November 28, 2008, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on June 6, 2009. ② On June 16, 2010, the Seoul High Court sentenced the suspended sentence of three years on June 1 and June 24, 2010 to the suspended sentence of three years, community service work 120 hours, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 24, 2010. ③ On June 29, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the suspended sentence of two years for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on July 7, 2010, ④ sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for six months at the Suwon District Court on January 30, 2012, and finally decided on June 1, 2012.

And the above (2), (3), (4), and (5) criminal records are about the crimes committed before the day when the judgment of criminal records becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, each crime at the time of the original adjudication and each crime for which the above judgment has become final and conclusive is related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, punishment should be imposed for each crime at the time of the original adjudication in consideration of equity in cases where each crime and each of the above judgments have become final and conclusive at the

However, examining the first head of the lower judgment’s criminal facts, the reasons for sentencing, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court sentenced each of the crimes as indicated in Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the crimes for which each of the above judgments became final and conclusive at the same time, taking into account equity and equity.