The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the first instance court is too uneasible;

2. The judgment of the court of first instance ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, and the judgment of the court of first instance omitted the list of offenses in the crime, which led to the omission of the list of offenses, thereby causing a mistake that did not specify the crime. The judgment of the court of first instance contains an error of law that affected the conclusion of

3. According to the conclusion, the first instance judgment is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the entries in each corresponding column of the judgment of the first instance except for addition of the attached list of crimes. Therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent 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 crimes is not good in light of the number of crimes, the scale of damage, etc. However, the crime of this case is in the concurrent crimes between criminal records and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The criminal records of this case are the same criminal facts of the first instance judgment and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The criminal records of this case are identical to the criminal records of this case, and the total amount of damage is 7.8 billion won, and the five-year punishment has been imposed, and the defendant is recognized as the criminal acts of this case, and there is no specific criminal record other than the criminal records of this case, and all other conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior,