The judgment below

The part of the judgment on fraud is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

The judgment below

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles [Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (compact No. 1 and 3 of the 2015 senior 758 senior 758 criminal facts)] Defendant did not administer philophones as stated in the facts charged No. 1 and 3 of the 2015 senior 758 senior 758 criminal facts], and there was no reinforcement evidence for Defendant’s confession.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing [one year, additional collection of 70,000 won] is too unreasonable for the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment for fraud, and one year, additional collection of 70,000 won for each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.).

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

Of the facts charged at the trial of the prosecutor, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the phrase “14,349,000 won” as “10,19,000 won” in the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court below among the facts charged at the trial of the court below. The prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the phrase “10,199,000 won in the annexed crime list in this case, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

In addition, according to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the first instance court, the defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Western District Court on August 12, 2008 and completed the execution of the sentence on December 18, 2009.

Since the instant fraudulent act constitutes a repeated crime committed within three years from the completion of the execution of punishment, the lower court erred by omitting the punishment, even though it has determined the applicable punishment within the scope of the aggravated punishment under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, so long as the lower court selects imprisonment with respect to the crime of fraud.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant admitted all the facts charged at the investigative agency and the lower court, but the appellate court once.