The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

As to each of the crimes set forth in Article 1(A) of the judgment of the court below.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two months of imprisonment and ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of No. 1 (A) in the original decision) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The part of each of the crimes of Article 1-A of the decision of the court below is not punishable by deceiving the victim by repeatedly deceiving the victim and enjoying amusement by drinking and drinking it, even though the defendant is well aware that he/she has no ability to pay for the first time, and by deceiving the amount as stated in the judgment of the court below.

However, in full view of various circumstances that are shown in the records and pleadings including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, social relationship, social relationship, method of crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., such as the fact that the defendant has agreed to pay the victim a sum of five million won, the victim does not want punishment for the defendant as well as in the original trial, and the victim wants to take the preference in the first instance trial, and the balance with the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the previous conviction in the final judgment of the original court, etc., it is recognized that the sentence imposed on the defendant for each crime as set forth in the judgment of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant again committed the same kind of crime as the instant crime during the grace period even though he/she was sentenced to a suspended sentence with the criminal power as stated in the judgment of the court below as part of Article 1-b, C, and Article 2 of the judgment of the court below.

However, the fact that the Defendant was fully aware of and erroneous for all of the instant crimes, that there seems to be no significant benefit from each of the instant crimes, that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and that the mother and the wife of the Defendant did not block the Defendant again more than twice.