The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

1. The punishment of the first instance court (one year of imprisonment) and that of the second instance court against the accused in the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this Court tried to concurrently examine the two appeals cases against the Defendant. The crimes in the judgment of each court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. 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.

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of each judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, Article 70 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, Article 239 (1) and (2) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of each imprisonment with prison labor concerning selective property damage, theft, crime of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, and crime of bodily injury;

1. Of concurrent crimes, it appears that the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act appears that the damage caused by each fraud is not significant, and the degree of damage caused by the victim of the bodily injury is not significant.