The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidence shall be confiscated as referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 14.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years, confiscation, and return of victims) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to add "even-time theft" to the name of the crime against the defendant in the trial room, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 331(1) and 330 of the Criminal Act, Article 330 of the Criminal Act, Article 330 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 342 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 342 and 329 of each Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of each Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 70 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act (the point of fraud, the selection of each imprisonment), Article 70 (1) 3 of

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

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the crime of this case, including the fact that the nature of the crime is not less complicated in light of the frequency of the crime and the degree of damage, and that the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims until the trial, and that the defendant was disadvantageous to the defendant.