The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court's imprisonment: the second instance court's imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, the second instance court's imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and the suspended execution for 1 year) 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 Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the criminal defendant’s fraud due to each of the crimes of this case is not clear, and that the circumstances after the crime are not good, such as the defendant’s unknown whereabouts in the trial process of each of the lower courts, are unfavorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant has a strong attitude to recognize all of his own crimes, and the defendant has a profoundly against the victims of the second instance court's investigation, and the first instance court's consent from the victims of the first instance court to each other.