The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Articles 1 through 5 and 7 of the List of Fraudulent Crimes listed in the judgment of the court below, respectively.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (in six months, six months, per annum of fraud in the list of fraud crimes in the original judgment, 1 to 7, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) is too unreasonable.

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

A. The prosecutor changed the portion equivalent to KRW 724,735,00 in total to nine companies out of the facts constituting a crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer in the original judgment at this court. The portion equivalent to KRW 704,915,00 in total to nine companies is equivalent to the total of KRW 704,915,000, and the trade name, business number, purchase, supply price, and tax invoice items of the portion “AD company” in the annexed crime list (1) of the original judgment were deleted. The total amount of KRW 724,735,00 (1) in the annexed crime list (1) of the original judgment was changed to “704,915,00 (won)”, and the total amount of KRW 223,610,000 (won) per annum was changed to “200,606,2006,2006,2006,” and the court was changed to “2060,7000 (1,606)” per annum.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. On April 5, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 13, 2012.

Although it is obvious that the date of the crime of fraud No. 6 of the annexed list of fraud crime committed on May 20, 2012, which was attached to the judgment of the court below, is a crime after the above judgment was made, the court below erred by misapprehending that the crime was committed in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Conclusion.