The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for an amendment to the indictment with the phrase “160,857,236 won” in the last sentence of Article 2 of the facts charged in the instant case to “170,857,236 won,” and this Court permitted it, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows: (a) the summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is as follows: (b) the “160,857,236 won” of 2 criminal conduct from the end of paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below to “170,857,236 won”; and (c) it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, (d) it is cited by Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

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

1. It is recognized that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes against victim I stock companies with more severe criminal punishment) are divided by his/her mistake, and that there is no particular criminal history, other than punishment once a fine is imposed, and there is no record of being punished for the same kind of crime.

However, even though the amount of fraud exceeds a total of 220 million won, damage recovery has not been achieved, and it has not been agreed with the victims, and all of the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and result of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc.