The judgment below

Part concerning the second offense in the judgment shall be reversed.

A fine of 5,000 on the second offense against the defendant's judgment.

1. The sentence of the court below (the first crime at the time of original adjudication: the imprisonment of April, the suspension of execution of one year, and the second crime at the time of original adjudication: the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions in the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing on the first crime at the time of the Defendant’s original judgment, a favorable circumstance is recognized, such as the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the crime of the first crime at the time of the original judgment; (b) the Defendant’s consent with the victim E does not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (c) the crime of the first crime at the time of the Defendant’s original judgment is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive on January 13, 2012 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which may be mitigated or exempted from punishment in consideration

However, the crime of the first crime at the time of the original adjudication is deemed to have been committed repeatedly by the defendant to raise the deposit money of another criminal case, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good, and the defendant has been punished several times as the same crime, and in full view of the various sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below as to the first crime at the time of the original adjudication is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing as to the first crime is without merit.

B. On January 5, 2012, the Defendant should be strictly punished in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for fraud on January 5, 2012; (b) the Defendant repeatedly committed the crime of the second offense during the period of the suspended sentence; and (c) the embezzlement amount is a maximum amount of KRW 60 million during the period of the suspended sentence.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of the second crime at the time of the original trial, and is in depth divided, and the defendant.