All the judgment below is reversed.

The defendant is guilty of embezzlement in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the second instance of the Prosecutor (the punishment of eight months in prison for the violation of the Narcotics Control Act and the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (marijuana) and the punishment of two months in prison for the crime of fraud in the judgment of the Prosecutor, the punishment of two years in prison for the suspension of execution, the confiscation of evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the confiscation of evidence No. 603,000) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) In relation to the crime of special injury to the first instance trial resolution by mistake of fact, even at the present site of this case, there was no fact that group fighting was conducted for the purpose of speaking, nor carried a deadly weapon, or assaulted the victim.

2 In relation to fraud of the resolution of the original adjudication, there is no intention of deception because it was known that the vehicle believed to have been sent by the employees of the pawned Line and that the vehicle was sent.

2) The punishment of each judgment of the court below (the sentence of the court below No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for a special injury; fine of KRW 5 million for embezzlement; and the sentence of the judgment of the court below No. 2) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. As to the Defendant who reversed ex officio following a consolidated hearing, the judgment of the court below was rendered, and the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to consolidate the above two appeals cases with the court of first instance on December 6, 2017 by the decision of the court of second instance on December 6, 2017.

As examined below, the first instance court decided to punish the Defendant with imprisonment for the crime of embezzlement of the first instance judgment, contrary to the original judgment. The Defendant’s first instance judgment and the second instance judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of fraud of the second instance judgment is one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below as to embezzlement and the fraud of the second instance judgment cannot be maintained.

(b) Several offenses committed before and after the final judgment are rendered.