The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years and six months) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that the list of crimes in the indictment was changed to the list of crimes in the annexed crime in the trial of the party. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission, the part of the judgment of the court below except the compensation order can no longer be maintained.

3. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below, except for the compensation order, is reversed under the above ex officio reversal ground. Thus, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, the part of the judgment below excluding the compensation order among the judgment below pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be reversed, and the following decision shall

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court is as follows: (a) changing the list of offenses in the judgment of the court below into the list of offenses in the annexed crimes; and (b) changing the “1. Defendant’s legal statement” in the summary of the evidence in the judgment of the court below to “1. Defendant’s legal statement” into the “legal statement in the court of the court of the first instance”; (c) therefore, it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment

Application of Statutes

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing of Article 347(1) of the pertinent Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the Selection of Punishment Act (as a whole, the crime of this case’s punishment of imprisonment) indicates that the Defendant, who is not capable of performing his/her obligation, has shown that he/she was able to marry with the victim even though he/she was in front of marriage with another woman, and that he/she obtained the money of approximately KRW 197 million in total for two years by using the victim’s name. In light of the Criminal Procedure Act and the amount of fraud, the crime is inferior, and even if the victim received a loan from the lending company, the Defendant provided money to the Defendant, even though he/she received the money from the lending