The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the part exceeding KRW 80 million out of the amount obtained by defraudation amounting to KRW 113 million as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, and convicted the remainder.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the guilty portion, and the prosecutor appealed on the guilty portion as an unreasonable sentencing, but did not appeal on the acquittal portion of the reasons.

In such a case, the part of acquittal in the reasoning is also judged by the appellate court along with the part of conviction based on the principle of non-guilty appeal. However, the part of acquittal in the reason is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, this part cannot be judged again by the court.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Accordingly, the lower court’s conclusion with respect to the part not guilty for the above reasons is followed, and this Court does not decide separately.

2. Grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing on the part of the offense);

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

There are circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds the money repeatedly, the fact that the victim committed the crime of this case during the parole period after paroled the victim for the same kind of crime during the parole period, and that the amount of damage is considerable and the damage is not fully recovered

However, in full view of the facts that the defendant confessions and reflects, and that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim during the appellate trial, and that the victim is also responsible for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage, the punishment of the court below is somewhat unreasonable.

4. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal against the guilty portion of the judgment below is justified.