The part of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance concerning the first crime shall be reversed.

Defendant 1. The judgment of the court of first instance

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the second instance judgment: the imprisonment with prison labor for the first crime as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and the imprisonment with prison labor for the second crime as stated in the judgment of the lower court) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against each judgment of the court below for ex officio determination, the defendant filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance as to the crime of first instance in the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to one sentence pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court of

3. As to the grounds for appeal against the crime No. 2 as indicated in the judgment of the court below in the second instance, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, and that the case against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to which punishment was finalized on September 24, 2015 and the concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, should consider equity with regard

However, the defendant's crime of this case was committed by deceiving the victim Z to pay the monthly salary of KRW 2 million to directors, and by concluding a lease contract in the name of the victim Z with the acquisition of property profits equivalent to the 23.47 million won at the market price. In light of the method of fraud and amount, etc., the crime is not good. The victim Z was in arrears with approximately KRW 78 million, such as unpaid rent, etc., and its credit status was bad, and it is likely that the lease vehicle will be returned and its damage will also be recovered, as argued by the defendant and his defense counsel, as argued by the defendant and his defense counsel.