The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio are examined ex officio prior to the judgment.

On June 30, 2016, the prosecutor applied the Act to the facts charged in the instant case No. 2016 order No. 888 on June 30, 2016, which read “Article 15-2(1)1 of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage to Telecommunications Financial Fraud and the Refund of Damage,” and Article 32 of the Criminal Act” as “Article 15-2(1)2 of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage to Telecommunications Financial Fraud and the Refund of Damage,” and applied for amendments to the indictment.

In addition, on July 14, 2016, the Prosecutor amended Article 15-2(1)1 of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage to Telecommunications Financial Services and the Refund of Damage, and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 347(1) of the former Act on the Prevention of Damage to Telecommunications Financial Services and the Refund of Damage, and Article 8(1)1 of the former Financial Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 15-2(4)1 of the former Financial Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 6(3)1 of the former Financial Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30, Article 32, Article 37, Article 38 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 of the former Financial Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 347(1) of the former Financial Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 47(1)1 of the former Financial Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 36(1)1 of the former Financial Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 6(3)6(1) of the former Financial Services and Capital Markets Act.

This Court has changed the object of the adjudication of aiding and abetting the violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Fraud in Telecommunications and the Refund of Damage, by granting permission for each of the above changes in the indictments as stated in the judgment below, and the above crime of fraud and the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.