All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the judgment of the court below rendered against the defendant is too unreasonable (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the second judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months).

2. We examine ex officio the appeal ex officio, and the defendant filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below, and examined the appeal case in the first instance court. However, as long as each crime of the judgment of the court below on the market is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below should be rendered at the same time and a sentence should be imposed. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. As such, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed in entirety, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are identical to each corresponding column of the judgment 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 and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes as provided for in the crime of embezzlement on or around December 30, 2013 with heavy criminality) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes by concurrent crimes as provided for in the crime of embezzlement on or around December 30, 2013) is that the Defendant embezzled funds from among his/her doors he/she is the secretary general, and the nature of the offense is not good,

The defendant has a criminal record of the same kind of punishment in 2010.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case, and is against the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are discussed in the arguments in this case.