The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The 1-year imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Nos. 1, 7, and 8 of the judgment of the defendant, and the 2 to 6-6 of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, on August 24, 2017, received KRW 15 million from the victim Y and actually obtained permission for solar power generation projects. ② On May 24, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 140 million from the victim Y and used some of them as agreed upon, and some of them used individually under the said victim’s understanding.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Crimes for which judgment of ex officio or higher punishment has become final and the crimes committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive shall constitute concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes provided for in Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive are concurrently adjudicated

In addition, when there is a final and conclusive judgment sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for other crimes in several middle of crimes, the relationship of concurrent crimes should be prevented at the time of the final and conclusive judgment, so two punishment should be sentenced.

According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to a community service order for three years of suspended execution for one year and 200 hours of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the Daegu District Court (2018 High Court, 1463, 2018 High Court, 2018 High Court, 2200) on June 22, 2018, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 30, 2018.

Therefore, since crimes Nos. 1, 7, and 8 of the judgment of the court below are related to the crimes for which the above judgment has become final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below should have sentenced a single punishment in consideration of equity with the crimes for which judgment has not been rendered simultaneously with the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive, and should have sentenced a separate punishment for each of the crimes for which the defendant committed after the above judgment has become final and conclusive.