The part concerning each crime of fraud in the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning each crime in the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the original decision by Defendant 1 and 2 is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the first original decision of the Prosecutor’s 1 is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

The first and second original courts rendered a judgment against the defendant after completing separate hearings with the Gwangju District Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 29, 3620, 4176, 5224, 5431 (Joint) and the Gwangju District Court 2018 High Court 1393, and sentenced the defendant to be sentenced to each punishment. Regarding the first and second original judgment, the defendant filed an appeal against the first instance court, and this court decided to jointly deliberate on the above appeal cases. The between the first and second original judgment against the defendant and the two crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the part of the judgment of the lower court as to each of the crimes in violation of Article 2 of the Criminal Act should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, and all of the judgment below as to each of the crimes in violation of Article 2 of the Criminal Act are reversed.

B. Considering the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution despite his or her previous convictions in the judgment of the first instance court, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided, the balance of sentencing with the same crime, and the age, sex and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3.