The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the first head of the facts charged was examined by the prosecutor, and the first head of the facts charged was determined as follows: “The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act in the Jeonju District Court’s military support on April 8, 2015, and the judgment on October 16, 2015 became final and conclusive.

In addition, “The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is added to “the subject of the judgment by this Court after permission,” and the subject of the judgment was changed. As such, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: “The Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment for a violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act in the Jeonju District Court’s military production support on April 8, 2015, and the judgment was finalized on October 16, 2015.

With the exception of adding "," it is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 355 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to treat concurrent crimes: (a) the reason for sentencing under Article 39(1) appears to have led to the instant crime due to the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the mistake in depth; and (b) economic difficulties were to have led to the instant crime; and (c) as at the time of leasing the instant vehicle, the victim paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 12.4 million to the victim, part of damage was