The part concerning the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. The sentence of the court below against the defendant (unfair sentencing: 1 year of suspended sentence in February, 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor in the judgment of the court below; 2 year of imprisonment with prison labor in the judgment of the court below; 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor in the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment ex officio (the part concerning the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance) is examined ex officio prior to the determination of the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

According to the records, the defendant filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and the appellate court decided to consolidate each appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance.

The crime of Articles 2, 3 and 2 of the Judgment of the first instance court with respect to the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part concerning the crime of Articles 2 and 3 of the Judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the second instance cannot be maintained any more.

3. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing (the part of the judgment of the court below No. 1) regarding the Defendant’s error is divided by recognizing all the crimes of this case.

The defendant is a deaf-mute, and the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

Since the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes with the crime of intimidation for which judgment has become final and conclusive, it is necessary to consider equity in the case of judgment at the same time.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is highly socially malicious in that the defendant transferred his passbook, etc. to another person and the access media transferred can be abused for the crime of the so-called Bosing, etc.

In fact, the national bank account transferred by the defendant was used for the phishing crime, and the victim occurred.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, and crime.