The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of four years and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

A prosecutor has received five automobiles equivalent to 132,734,868 won in total of market prices in the indictment No. 1 of the 2017 High Order No. 2141.

“A passenger car was issued with a total of KRW 112,673,401 in the market value.”

“As to the facts charged, each of the changes in the list of crimes related to the above facts charged as shown in the list of crimes in the annexed sheet, and the facts charged in the case No. 3618 at the highest order of 2017 as stated in the revised facts of the case No. 3618, 2017, the lower court applied for amendments to the indictment with the same purport as stated in the revised facts of the case No. 3618, 2017. Since this court permitted the amendment,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety, since each of the above and the remaining crimes in the judgment should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes.

【The facts charged with the change in the case No. 3618 of the Highest Order 2017 【Defendant is a person who operates an automobile industrial company with the trade name of ‘N’ in Ilyang-gu, Ilyang-si.

On October 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) knew that the victimO sent a car at the food No. 2 in the U.S. that was a vehicle involved in an accident to V in Korea in 2015; and (b) made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would repair and return the car at the seat of the vehicle” to V through AC.

However, it was thought that the defendant would immediately sell the above car to AD upon the delivery of the above car.

After all, the Defendant obtained the issuance of 13,592,691 won in the market price through the order of 13,592,691 from the above industrial company in the order of Haman on October 2016.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio. Thus, Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument about sentencing.