All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the original court rendered (e.g., imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and imprisonment of 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the arguments were combined in the trial of the court. Each of the crimes that the judgment of the court below rendered are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that sentenced a separate punishment for each of the above crimes cannot be maintained in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows

[Discied Judgment] The facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence, and thus, the gist of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

Application of Statutes

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud) and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

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 crimes [limited circumstances] is recognized and against all of the crimes of this case.

In the first instance, the victim B and 38 others were repaid a total of approximately KRW 6.5 million.

[M] Each of the crimes of this case is very heavy in that the defendant acquired money to a large number of victims by various means, such as Internet transactions, deposits, rents, borrowed money, etc. in order to raise money for gambling.

In particular, Internet transaction fraud is a crime committed against many unspecified persons in the amount of damage.