Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, each of the crimes listed in (2) Nos. 6 to 21, 2016 order 3073 annexed hereto, is classified as follows.

1. The appellate court's punishment (the first instance court: the imprisonment of six months and the imprisonment of one year, the second instance court; the imprisonment of four months and the third instance: the imprisonment of four months; the imprisonment of four months and the fourth instance: the imprisonment of four months; the imprisonment of four months) is too unreasonable; and

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

The Court held that the defendant's each appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated and tried, and that each of the offenses listed in [2] Nos. 6 through 21 of the attached list of crimes listed in [2] No. 3073 of the first instance judgment, each of the offenses listed in [2] No. 6 through 21 of the attached list of crimes listed in [2] No. 3073, the second 3216, the second 3235, each of the offenses listed in the second 3235, and the second 2,3, and 4 of the Criminal Act are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus a single punishment is to be imposed within the scope of the punishment aggravated under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the court below's judgment of first 2016, the second 3073, each of the offenses listed in [2] No. 6 through 21 of the attached list of crimes, the second 2016, the second 312, and the second 36332.

3. Of the judgment of the Defendant’s first instance judgment regarding the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the part on the Defendant’s respective frauds listed in [2] through (2) Nos. 1 through 5, each frauds listed in [2] No. 3073 of [3] List of Crimes in [3073] among the judgment of the lower court in the first instance, and each of the frauds and attempted frauds listed in [3148 [3] above are examined as to the illegal assertion of sentencing on the ground that there is no ground for

Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant commits an error against the defendant, and the fact that the equity is to be considered in the case of judgment at the same time as the crime of fraud for which judgment has become final, the nature of each crime of this case is not good, the victims' recovery of damage has not been achieved, the defendant continues to commit a crime even though he was tried for the same kind of crime, and all the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., are shown.