The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the facts constituting the crime of 2015 High Order 2640 which was decided by the court below, the defendant was not in the position of a person who holds property against the victims.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to add the ancillary facts charged (the detailed contents of the ancillary facts charged are as follows (the same as the subsequent facts stated in the facts constituting the crime) in the indictment No. 2640 in the first instance trial, and this Court permitted the Defendant to do so.

As above, the subject of the judgment on the part in which Amendments to Bill of Indictment was permitted was changed, and each of the above crimes and the remaining crimes in the judgment of the court below, as seen above, should be sentenced to a single punishment in the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

B. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles: Provided, however, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the

(1) On September 8, 2013, the Defendant was entrusted with a consignment sale in the form of lease succession equivalent to KRW 90,000,000,000 that the victim received from Hyundai Capital Capital Capital Capital in the Z office of the victim X in Mapo-gu around September 8, 2013, and continued to be carried out by the Defendant, among the facts charged under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Article.