The judgment below

Part 2, 5, and 6 of the judgment shall be reversed.

As to the fifth offense, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one month.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (2 years of suspended sentence in the sixth month of imprisonment with prison labor, 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor, 3 and 4: Imprisonment with prison labor, 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor, 3 and 4: Imprisonment with prison labor, 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant agreed with the victim F at the court below as to the crime No. 1 in the judgment, the crime of embezzlement established by the court below and the crime of concurrent crimes with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive on October 24, 2008, should be considered at the same time as the case is judged, but the amount of defraudation is not written as KRW 50 million, the defendant can have a criminal record who was punished as the same kind of crime before the above crime, and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments are considered comprehensively, and it is difficult to see that this part of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is groundless.

B. As to the crime No. 5 in the holding, the amount of the instant fraud is not less than KRW 84 million, but the Defendant has not yet reached an agreement with the victim, and even if it is recognized that there are several criminal records of the same kind, the victim recovered the amount equivalent to KRW 47 million through dividends in the auction procedure, and the Defendant deposited KRW 20 million in the court at the same time, and the amount of damage is recovered, and the amount of the damage is to be considered at the same time in the concurrent relationship with the crime of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crime of fraud for which the judgment has become final and conclusive on June 30, 2012, and the amount of the punishment specified in the records and arguments of the instant case should be considered at the same time as the case is judged at the same time. In full view of the sentencing conditions specified in the records

C. In full view of the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim L/M in the lower court regarding the crimes Nos. 2 and 6 of the holding, the Defendant agreed with the victim of the crime of embezzlement in the appellate court, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, this part of the lower judgment’s sentencing is too excessive.