The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

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

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

The Defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court on March 16, 2017 and became final and conclusive on July 12, 2017. However, the above embezzlement for which the crime of embezzlement and judgment became final and conclusive in the judgment of the lower court is in a concurrent crime relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, should be sentenced to punishment for embezzlement in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

3. 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 of the court below is reversed, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is the first head of the lower judgment on March 16, 2017 and the judgment on July 12, 2017 became final and conclusive on July 12, 2017.

Except for the addition of "," it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as it is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

2. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is that the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects the Defendant’s fault at the time of the instant crime. At the time of the instant crime, the instant car was a middle class of about eight years and its market price was not high is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party even though he did not compensate for the damage is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In this context, the first head of the judgment of the court below, which is in the relationship of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code.