All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for five months and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for three months) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination of this court decided to consolidate the appeal cases of the court of first instance and the appeal cases of the court of second instance against the defendant. On the other hand, each of the offenses which the court of first instance found guilty is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the first and second judgment of the court of second judgment should be reversed.

3. As such, the first and second judgment of the court below are reversed without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the first and second judgment of the court below are all reversed, and the following is again decided upon through pleading.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts stated in each corresponding column of the original judgment. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Articles 6(3)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (a point of transfer of access) of the same Act; and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Among concurrent crimes, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act appears to be against the Defendant’s depth in recognizing all of his/her own crimes, the fact that the amount of damage is a small amount of damage (total of 307,50 won), and the fact that the victims’ damage appears to have been fully repaid is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of fraud of this case was committed against a large number of victims and its nature is very poor, and the defendant is a crime of fraud.