Each judgment of the court below shall reverse all the part of the defendant's case.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.

evidence of seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of each of the lower courts (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court that acquitted the Defendant of the reasons for the crime No. 2 of the annexed Table No. 2 of the misunderstanding of Fact in the judgment of the lower court is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence of the lower court on the misappropriation of unfair sentencing is too un

2. Each court of original judgment, after completing the hearing on the Defendant, sentenced each of the above imprisonment with prison labor.

As to each judgment of the court below, the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the appealed cases.

However, each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, there are reasons for the above ex officio reversal in the judgment below.

Even if the above prosecutor's argument of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the victim talked that the same employee who was the first day on which the witness was called "the first day" in the court below, and that the person who was the same as the preceding day can be identified even during the process without a mental disorder, clearly stated to the purport that he was "the person who was the same as the preceding day". In the case of the fraud by fraud of money for three consecutive days from the same person, the money was received on the first day and the last day on the ground that there is no objective evidence, such as Cctv, etc.