All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, and No. 2.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, additional collection for 3,830,000 won, and the second instance court: Imprisonment for each crime set forth in the table Nos. 1 to 141 of the crime sight table of the lower court; six months, additional collection for 7,339,600 won for each crime set forth in the table Nos. 1 to 268 of the crime sight table of the lower court; and six months, additional collection for 7,339,60 won) are too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the records of the first instance judgment, the Defendant, at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 12, 2019, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for ten months due to a violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Network Utilization, etc.) at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 12, 20

Since each crime of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant and the above crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the first instance cannot be maintained as they are, after considering the equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment, the sentence for each crime of the judgment of the

In addition, the defendant has a single criminal intent to spread the "E", which is a malicious program, and has spread repeatedly in the same way while the criminal's intent is pending, and the damage legal interests and victims are also the same, so even though each act of spreading each of the crimes of this case constitutes a single crime, the court below held that each of the acts of spreading each of the crimes of this case constitutes a single crime, and committed an unlawful act that is treated as concurrent crimes, and such unlawful act has influenced the judgment, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. For the reasons as seen earlier in the judgment of the court below, each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of second instance falls under a single comprehensive crime, and in the middle of a single comprehensive crime, if there is a final judgment on a separate crime, a single comprehensive crime is divided into two separate crimes, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is