We reverse the judgment of the court below.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of each judgment of the court below (the first judgment: 8 months of imprisonment and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

This Court held two appeals cases against the defendant jointly and tried by the two original judgments, and since the crime in the decision of each original court is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the original judgment cannot be maintained any more.

As such, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column of each judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code aggravated concurrent crimes is that the defendant's mistake is recognized. However, the accused's fraudulent conduct against many unspecified persons on the Internet website disturbs the order of electronic commercial transactions, and thus requires strict punishment. The victims of the crime of this case do not reach 70 persons, and the sum of the defrauded money is not specified as KRW 13 million, and all of the crimes of this case were committed during the repeated crime period, and the defendant already had the same criminal records on nine occasions, and the crime of this case in the judgment of the first instance is committed while the judgment of the second instance is pending due to the crime of this case.