The part of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the part of compensation order and provisional execution) and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

1. The judgment of the court below No. 1 regarding the scope of the trial of this Court dismissed the prosecution of assault among the facts charged No. 2014 High Order No. 1632, and sentenced the remainder of the facts charged.

However, since the defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and did not appeal both a prosecutor and the defendant with respect to the dismissal part of the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the public prosecution, the dismissal part of the judgment of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive separately, and only the remaining guilty portion of the judgment of the court of second instance and the judgment

2. The decision of the court below (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 4 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 years) is too unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, this Court tried by examining each appeal case against the judgment of the court below jointly. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and each of the crimes of the judgment of the court of second instance with respect to the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor on June 29, 2010 by the Suwon Franchisor and completed the execution of the sentence on November 8, 2010. The defendant's crime of fraud in the 2014 Highest Judgment 1888, which was held on June 29, 2010, was committed within three years from the date of termination of the execution of each of the above punishment.

However, even though the judgment of the court of first instance should have aggravated repeated crimes under Article 35 of the Criminal Act with respect to each of the above crimes, it is obvious that the judgment of the court of first instance was omitted.