All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. The court of the trial at its discretion decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the defendant by the court below.

The judgment of the court below, in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, should simultaneously be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of punishment for aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, all judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The lower court’s conclusion is reversed in its entirety pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and further decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence acknowledged by this court shall be as shown in the corresponding column of the original judgment.

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor) that apply to applicable criminal facts and the choice of punishment (the point of embezzlement and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. From among concurrent crimes, each of the crimes of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (up to concurrent crimes prescribed in the crime of fraud against the Victim K with the largest punishment) among the concurrent crimes, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 130 million from the victims; (b) embezzled a total of KRW 90 million; (c) the liability for the crime is not easy; (d) the Defendant did not agree with the victims other than the victim H who want to be able to take the Defendant’s prior action; and (e) the Defendant did not additionally recover from damage in the trial.

However, the defendant's mistake is against his own fault due to a serious concern while living in prison, and the defendant.