1. A. Of the judgment of the court below in the first instance, the part concerning the crime of the case [2015 order 1054] and the judgment of the court below in the second instance.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable in that of the lower court’s respective punishment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and June / 2: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three months).

2. Ex officio determination

A. The court of first and second instance sentenced the Defendant to the punishment of imprisonment for six months with prison labor and three months with prison labor for the crime of the first instance court [2015 high group 1291] in the first instance court [2015 high group 1291] in the above case], and the Defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the court of the first instance decided to jointly examine each of the above appeals cases. The court of the first instance decided to jointly examine the case.

B. Of the first instance judgment against the Defendant, the crime of the case and the crime of the second instance judgment against the Defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment, which has been aggravated by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part concerning the crime of the lower judgment [2015 high group 1054] and the crime of Article 2 of the lower judgment cannot be exempted from the reversal of the lower judgment.

3. Of the judgment of the court below in the first instance, the judgment on the appeal against the crime of the case [2015 order 1291] in the judgment of the court below

A. It is recognized that the Defendant’s confession and reflects the instant crime, and that the equity with the case of being tried should be considered together with the case of being tried, as stated in the judgment of the first instance court where the punishment becomes final and conclusive.

B. However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the amount of defraudation of this case is KRW 50 million; (b) the Defendant was unable to agree with the victim I up to the judgment of the court; and (c) the Defendant had the records of having been punished several times for the same crime of fraud (the actual 6 times of punishment, probation period twice of execution, and fines three times); and (d) other factors such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime.