The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

According to the records of this case, the Defendant, at the Daejeon District Court on December 24, 2014, sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year to be a crime of fraud on December 24, 2014, and on January 1, 2015, became final and conclusive.

The crime of fraud and the crime of this case for which judgment has become final and conclusive shall be sentenced in consideration of equity in the case where a judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act as a concurrent crime relationship under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the above ex officio reversal of the grounds for reversal of unfair sentencing. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the following decision is delivered through

Criminal facts

The summary of the judgment of the court below on December 24, 2014 added "the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a crime of fraud at the Daejeon District Court on January 1, 2015, which became final and conclusive on January 1, 2015" to the first head of the judgment of the court below on the summary of the evidence, and "1.: A copy of each written judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Da1824, Daejeon District Court 2014No2814, Daejeon District Court 2014)," and "the details of inquiries into consolidated cases," are the same as each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions and Article 82 (1) of the former Design Protection Act (amended by Act No. 1111, Dec. 2, 2011);

1. The latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the treatment of concurrent crimes (the punishment shall be determined in consideration of the relationship between the crimes of fraud and the above crimes, simultaneously with the judgment),

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

1. The defendant's reason for sentencing of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is against the confession of the crime, and is the same as the previous one.