The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

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

A. The prosecutor’s amendment to the indictment was in the first instance trial, and the facts charged in breach of trust in the case of the High Court 2019 High Court 2542, and maintained the name of the crime as it is, “influence of exercising rights,” “Article 323 and 40 of the Criminal Act,” “Article 323 and 40 of the Criminal Act,” and “in this part of the facts charged as follows: (a) an application for the amendment to the indictment was filed by adding the same contents as that of the criminal facts altered among the facts charged; and (b) the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’

B. On the charge of breach of trust among the facts charged in the case 2019 High Court Order 2542, the appellate court may decide ex officio on the charge of breach of trust only on the grounds of appeal contained in the petition of appeal or in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the period for submission of the written reason for appeal.

However, the court of appeals shall judge the grounds for ex officio investigation not included in the petition of appeal or the statement of reason submitted within the period for filing an appeal (proviso of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Here, the grounds for ex officio examination as referred to in this context include not only the application of statutes or statutory interpretation, but also obvious misunderstanding of facts or unfair sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2002Mo338, May 16, 2003; Supreme Court Order 2000Mo564, Mar. 30, 2006). The Defendant appealed this part of the judgment of the court below for the sole reason that the judgment of the court below was erroneous, but it is examined whether there was any error by misapprehending the legal principles ex officio or by mistake of facts prior to the judgment on

2) On June 13, 2016, the Defendant in breach of trust, on June 13, 2016, committed a factory and mining foundation mortgage act (hereinafter “factory Mortgage Act”) from the Industrial Bank of Korea at the Seongbuk-gu I factory of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on June 13, 2016.