The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The lower court’s sentence (six million won of a fine) against the Defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unhued.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the court below ex officio examined "the list of crimes in attached Form" in the criminal facts against the defendant, but there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by omitting the attached Form and failing to specify the criminal facts. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court are as shown in the corresponding column of the judgment below, except for the addition of the "attached sheet" omitted in the judgment below as shown in the attached Form. Therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions for facts constituting an offense, Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of embezzlement of stolen articles), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 70(1)3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (the point of use of lost or stolen cards), Article 326 of the Criminal Act (the point of larceny), the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing grounds of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the provisional payment order include: (a) the Defendant could have been identical to that of the Defendant; (b) the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even during the period of repeated crime; (c) the Defendant has led to the confession of all the instant crimes; (d) the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime; and (e) the extent of damage was not significant; and (e) the victim E and H agreed smoothly with the victim.