The remaining parts of the first judgment excluding the application for compensation order and the second judgment shall be reversed, respectively.

1. The punishment of imprisonment with prison labor (one year) of the first original judgment of the court of appeal No. 1 and that of the second original judgment (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable;

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

The defendant filed an appeal against the first and second original judgment, respectively, and this court decided to jointly examine each of the above appeals cases.

However, since the first and second judgments of the court below against the defendant are in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, they shall be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of a severe penalty pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act, the remaining parts of the first and the second judgments of the court below, excluding the application for compensation order, cannot be maintained any more.

3. If so, the court below's judgment of the first and second court is reversed without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the remaining parts of the first and second original judgment except the compensation order among the original judgment pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act are reversed, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes is only one time of punishment by a fine, and the fact that there is no record of punishment for the same crime as the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the nature of each of the crimes of this case is not good, that the number of victims is many, that the amount of fraud is not large, and that the restoration of damage was not completed is disadvantageous to the defendant.

The above circumstances and others.