The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable, for six months of imprisonment imposed by the defendant.

2. In light of the fact that the defendant had previously been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and in particular, on October 24, 2012, he committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the fact that on December 17, 2012, he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months from the Busan District Court and without being aware of the fact that he/she had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years from the Busan District Court on December 17, 2012, he/she committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the fact that he/she had been sentenced to the suspended sentence; he/she committed the first crime on the only one month from the date he/she was sentenced to the suspended sentence; and committed the same several crimes over five occasions, we accept

However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth, that the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is relatively large, that the Defendant shows symptoms such as alcohol dependence, etc., and that these disease appears to have affected the degree of each crime of this case, that the Defendant was confined to detention houses for a period corresponding to the punishment of six months sentenced by the lower court, that where the Defendant’s sentence becomes final and conclusive, each of the suspended sentence as seen earlier is invalidated and the Defendant’s punishment becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant should additionally be sentenced to an additional sentence of 16 months of imprisonment. This appears to be somewhat harsh punishment for the Defendant in light of the degree of damage caused by each of the crimes of this case, and all of the circumstances surrounding the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, occupation, family relationship, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal of this case is justified.