The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspension of execution for one year, suspension of execution for two years: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, suspension of execution for two years, community service work 120 hours) of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

The appeal case against the judgment of the court below was joined in the trial for the first time, and each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the aggravated punishment in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot avoid the reversal.

In addition, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of an indictment to change “personal information 226,893 cases” to “personal information 140,485 cases” among the facts charged with the case of Seoul Central District Court 2012No4318. Since this Court permitted it, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first and the judgment of the court of second instances are all reversed, and it is decided as follows through the pleading.

[C] The facts constituting an offense and the summary of the evidence acknowledged by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: (a) the facts constituting an offense and the summary of the facts charged in the judgment below in the case of 2012No4318, “personal information 226,893 cases” in Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be deemed as “personal information 140,485 cases”; and (b) except for addition of “each prosecutor’s protocol of suspect examination about H” in the summary of the evidence in the case of 2012No4318, it is identical to the corresponding column