The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 months) of the lower court’s respective punishment (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 years and 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio destruction following the combination of appellate trials, the Defendant may be recognized on November 16, 2017, as having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution with prison labor for fraud at the Jung-gu District Court on November 16, 2017, which became final and conclusive on November 24, 2017. The above crime and the crime of fraud for which judgment became final and conclusive on November 24, 2017 are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of the second instance in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and the crime of the second instance judgment and the crime of the first instance judgment

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do2351, Jun. 10, 201). Therefore, each offense in the holding of the first and second instances does not constitute a case where one sentence is to be rendered pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the grounds for reversal ex officio are nonexistent even though the appellate case against the lower judgment was combined in the trial.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on the judgment of the court of first instance, and the sentencing of the first instance does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have the attitude of recognizing and reflecting all of the crimes; the amount of each of the instant fraud is relatively little; on the other hand, the Defendant had the record of having been sentenced to the suspended sentence of imprisonment by committing the instant crime on the date when the suspended sentence on the immediately preceding crime becomes final; the Defendant committed the instant crime on the date when the suspended sentence on the crime of fraud became final; the Defendant’s age, career, and health conditions; and the damage has not been recovered.