All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and imprisonment for 6 months) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the arguments were combined in the trial of the court. Each of the crimes that the judgment of the court below rendered are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that sentenced a separate punishment for each of the above crimes cannot be maintained in this respect.

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’s assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows

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

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 231 of the Criminal Act; Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act; Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment with labor for the crime;

1. It is recognized that the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act aggravated concurrent crimes is that the defendant confessions all of the crimes of this case and reflects them, and that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine.

However, even though the defendant acquired a total of 44 million won against two victims and did not have much amount of damage, the defendant wanted to punish the defendant up to the trial by some victims since the damage has not been recovered up to now, and the defendant in the course of the above defraudation.