The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A fine of four months shall be imposed on the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, and a fine of two crimes of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not have sufficient intent or ability to supply trees, and did not deceiving the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

According to the records, the defendant, on February 4, 2016, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, etc. at the Gwangju District Court on June 2, 2016, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 12, 2016. As such, since the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, etc., which became final and conclusive after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of fraud as stated in the judgment of the court below, are concurrent crimes in concurrent crimes after Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined after considering equity and the mitigation or exemption of punishment, and since the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) is a separate crime after the final and conclusive judgment of the court below is committed, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, etc., as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below should separately determine the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) as stated in the judgment of the court below, and sentenced two separate punishments to this case.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is to be examined.

B. The following circumstances, which were duly adopted and examined by the court below to determine the assertion of mistake of fact, i.e., ① the victim would sell trees to the defendant in the investigative agency and the court of the court below.

While trees can be taken out at any time, the circumstances of the defendant are difficult.