All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Each of the crimes of the first judgment of the defendant and the second judgment of the court of the judgment of the defendant, as shown above.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in the first instance court: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, a year of suspended execution, and a two months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime as stated in the first instance court) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

This Court held a joint hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of second instance with each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act is to be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part concerning

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing on the part of the first crime in the judgment of the second court is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing (as to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the second court), the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime in this part, the damage caused by the crime in this part is not significant, and the crime in this part is related to the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud for which the judgment has become final and conclusive, in light of the timing and methods of the crime of fraud and the degree of damage, etc., it appears that the more severe punishment would not have been sentenced even if the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime of fraud, etc. in light of the circumstances of the crime in this part, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the argument in this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

4. In conclusion, the part concerning the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the first and second original judgment as stated above is the same.