The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

The defendant is judged in the first instance court.

1. On the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to four years of imprisonment, 2016 order 3355, 2016 order 3425, 3426 order 40, 2016 order 4030, 2016 order 465 order 2016 order 304 order 304, 2017 order 349, 2017 order 349, 2017 order 419 order 419 (hereinafter referred to as “part of the lower court’s order 1”) and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes described in paragraph (1) through (3), 2016 order 3514, 2016 order 3516 order 4059, 2016 order 430, 2016 order 430, 2016 order 27, 2015 order 27, respectively.

2. Ex officio determination of ex officio, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to consolidate the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below No. 1 and the judgment of the court below No. 2 in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and shall be punished as a single sentence in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so this part of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. We examine the Defendant’s unfair argument about the Defendant’s unfair determination of sentencing in the first instance court’s sentencing.

In light of the law and circumstances of the crime, each of the crimes committed in this part is deemed bad, and even if the amount of damage caused by the fraud is a large amount, damage has not been recovered, and in the process, multiple private documents have been forged and held. The crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act constitutes a crime that interferes with the exercise of the national tax collection right and seriously damages the tax justice. In this case, the scale of the crime is large, and the fact that the defendant can have been punished for the crime of fraud is disadvantageous.

However, the fact that the defendant led to his confession and reflects his mistake, that the defendant reached an agreement with AH, one of the fraudulent victims in the first instance court 2016 order 4655 case, and that the judgment became final and conclusive.