All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the oral proceedings of the court of appeal against the judgment of the court of Second Instance 2014No2088, which is the case of appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance. Each of the crimes recognized by the court of first and second instance against the defendant is in a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal as seen above, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent offenders appears to have recognized and reflected all of the crimes of this case, and agreed with most victims, and actively endeavored to recover damage, such as deposit of the amount equivalent to the amount of damage for the victims who failed to reach an agreement, etc., and the victim of the crime of this case reaches about 21 persons, and the amount of damage exceeds about 19 million won.