The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years, respectively.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court against the Defendants (e.g., three years of imprisonment for Defendant A and two years of imprisonment for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant specified the name of the crime against the defendant as the "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)" in the indictment of this case, the defendant is deemed to have been prosecuted as the comprehensive crime of violating the Act

However, the court below did not separately decide on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with respect to paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, which is the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and Article 2 of the judgment of the court below, which is found guilty in fraud with respect to paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below, and such illegality has influenced

B. Of the judgment of the court below, the crime of Article 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act is a crime which falls under Article 3(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, in order to sentence the defendant to imprisonment for a limited term of not less than three years

Nevertheless, the lower court, without reducing the amount of punishment, sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment without prison labor, thereby having sentenced the lower court to a lower sentence than the statutory penalty.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, this part of the judgment below

3. Therefore, the court below's decision on the ground of ex officio reversal is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing.