All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The punishment (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 90 hours of community service) of the court of first instance on the summary of the grounds for appeal (justifiable assertion) is so unfair that it is so unfair that it is too poor that it is so unfair or too unfasible that it is unfair (public prosecutor), and the punishment of the court of second instance (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) of the court of second instance is too unfasible;

(2) Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the judgment of the court below was rendered ex officio, 1, and 2, and the defendant and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance. The prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court rendered a decision to jointly examine each appeal case.

Therefore, each crime of the first and second original judgment is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the first and second original judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

In addition, the prosecutor also requested the victim company to amend the bill of amendment to the indictment of 2013 Go-Ma373 (the facts charged in the second judgment) to the part of the facts charged (the facts charged in the second judgment) that "the defendant has caused the victim company to incur property damage which would lose the value of security equivalent to the difference between the market price of 103 Go-Ma 201 and the principal and interest on each of the above debts." The defendant also requested the victim company to amend the bill of amendment to the indictment of 20,000 won which is the difference between the maximum debt amount of 151,00,000,000 won and the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security set forth in the above loan of 103 Go-Ba 201 and 98,220,000 won which is the difference between the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security set forth in the above loan of 108,000 won

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing, and the following is again reversed, and subject to pleading.