Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment below, excluding the order for compensation for the second trial, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and two months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) asserts that the Defendant is too unafforded in the sentence of the first original adjudication (one year and six months of imprisonment) and that the prosecutor is improper because it is too unafford in the sentence of the second original adjudication (eight months of imprisonment, order for compensation).

2. The appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated at the court below's ex officio reversal following the consolidation. Each of the offenses of the judgment below constitutes concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment below's judgment excluding the order for compensation order for the second judgment among the judgment below can no longer be maintained.

3. According to the conclusion, the part of the judgment below excluding the order for compensation order for the second instance from among the judgment below pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the unfair argument of sentencing between the defendant and the prosecutor, shall be reversed, and the following decision shall be rendered through the pleading.

【The reasoning of the judgment of the court below concerning the part other than the order for compensation for the second instance decision among the judgment below, which was used again for the part other than the order for compensation for the second instance decision of the court below, as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and the summary of the facts constituting the crime and evidence recognized by the court below and the summary of the evidence related thereto are the same as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is accepted pursuant to Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that the "hour

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 355(1) (the point of fraud) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes did not have any criminal record of the same kind or imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment, and the damage of embezzlement was recovered for a long time. However, even though multiple victims suffered considerable frauds over a large amount of time, there was no portion restored until the date five years passed since the date of the first crime, and the frequency period of the Criminal Act.