The part of the first judgment excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order and the second judgment shall be reversed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Article 1: 2 years and 6 months by imprisonment, and Article 2: 8 months by imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The first instance judgment case and the second instance judgment case against the defendant were consolidated in the judgment of the court below ex officio. Each of the above combined cases against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen earlier is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion on unfair sentencing, and all of the judgment of the court below with the exception of the rejection of the application for compensation order among the judgment of the court of first instance and the second judgment

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding column of each judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (each crime of the first instance judgment), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the crime of the second instance judgment), the choice of imprisonment for the crime, and the choice of a sentence, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act recognize and reflects the defendant's crime, and the amount of damage from the crime of this case exceeds 230 million won, many victims and some victims have been repaid, but the amount of damage has not been recovered if the total amount of damage was not the amount of damage, and the victim K continuously sought a severe punishment from the court below, and the victim J, who drafted the written agreement at the court below, also submitted a written petition on the ground that the victim J., who had made the written agreement at the court below, did not fully repay the amount to be repaid after the preparation of the written agreement.