The part of the first judgment excluding the compensation order and the second judgment shall be reversed in all.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years, and no. 2: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months) by the lower court is unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the case of this Court No. 2014No1495, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the case of this Court No. 2014No2975, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the oral proceedings of the oral proceedings. Each of the crimes of the judgment of the court of first and second is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the extent that aggravating concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of second and

On the other hand, the defendant deposited part of the amount of each damage caused by fraud against the victim E, G, H, and I in the trial. However, if the deposit for repayment is valid, it is required that the payment of the full amount of the obligation and the deposit for the full amount of the obligation is made, and the deposit for part of the obligation does not take effect as to that part (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da51359, Oct. 29, 2009). In the trial of the defendant, the amount of the deposit for the above victims is limited to part of the direct physical damage caused by fraud against the victims, and it is difficult to view that the victims received it without reservation. Thus, the amount of the deposit for the compensation order of the victim E, G, H, and I does not separately deduct the amount of the above deposit from the cited amount of the compensation order of the court below against the victim E, H, and I.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do4194 Decided June 10, 2011). 3. As such, the lower court’s judgment did not decide on the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing, on the ground that there exist grounds for ex officio reversal. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment is both the parts excluding compensation order among the first lower judgment and the second lower judgment under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.