All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for three months, and imprisonment with prison labor for three months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the court of first instance decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the defendant by examining the judgment below. The judgment of the court below is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below should simultaneously render a judgment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act and sentence a single punishment within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. If so, the court below's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided after pleading as follows.

【Grounds for another judgment】 The facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court and summary of the facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence are as stated in each of the corresponding columns of each judgment below, thereby citing them in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the fraudulent point against victim E), Articles 347(1), 30 (the point of fraud against the teacher of victim corporation) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each type of crime;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The defendant with reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act by aggravation of concurrent crimes is replaced by the nominal owner, and the quality of the crime is not good because the crime of this case is repeatedly committed.

The defendant did not agree with the victims or have recovered from the damage so that he/she can come to a trial.

On the other hand, as to each of the crimes of this case, a judgment is made at the same time as the crimes recorded in the records of the crime as stated in the judgment below, which are the relationship of single concurrent crimes after