Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the compensation order shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and compensation order, and imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. The form of the judgment of the court of first instance by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated by examining the judgment below ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment. Each of the offenses in the judgment below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of a limited term of punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the part of the judgment below, except for the compensation order under Article 1, among the judgment below, is

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below, except for the order for compensation by the first instance court, has the above reasons for reversal of authority among the judgment below. Thus, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, all of them are reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the following decision is rendered through pleading

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Of concurrent offenders, it appears that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant did not have any specific criminal power except for those sentenced three times to a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the past. If the vehicles related to the fraud to the victim C and H do not turn out to fire and received a company operation fund from the Defendant’s plans as they did not take place, then the part equivalent to the amount obtained by deception against the victim C and H could have been recovered.