The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 2,00,000) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the defendant can be recognized as having been sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 11, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 13, 2015. The crime of the crime and the above crime for which the judgment of the court below against the defendant became final and conclusive 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 judgment of the court below in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment is concurrently rendered in accordance with the former part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is made through oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: "The defendant is a person who was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 11, 2014 and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 13, 2015" in the first sentence of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, and except for addition of "one-way criminal record: each written judgment" in the fourth sentence of the evidence, it is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The fact that the amount of damage caused by the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not much significant, the damage recovery has not been made, the defendant confessions the defendant, the balance of the punishment with the case where the judgment became final and conclusive at the same time, should be considered.