The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of imprisonment with labor (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court shall be excessively unreasonable.

2. In light of the details and methods of the crime by repeatedly committing the crime committed against unspecified or large number of victims, etc., the Defendant is deemed to have been disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) there was a history of having been punished several times due to the crime of this species; and (b) the fact that the Defendant was arrested on a flagrant offender on December 21, 2014 due to obstruction of business and suspicion of fraud and was released after being investigated, and that it was highly likely to have been subject to criticism during the second offense only in this frame.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant made a confession of the facts of the instant crime and made a statement that he would not repeat again when he made his mistake in depth; (b) the degree of damage is relatively minor; (c) the victims agree with four victims; (d) the Defendant’s consciousness also wanted the Defendant’s wife; (b) the Defendant’s wife was hospitalized due to alcohol addiction; (c) the Defendant’s consciousness was suffering from hospitalized treatment; (d) there was insufficient economic situation as a basic living recipient; (d) there was insufficient opportunity to reflect the Defendant’s life in prison for about four months; (d) there was no previous conviction; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; and (e) the Defendant’s age, motive, degree of participation, means and consequence of the instant crime; (e) the circumstances after the instant crime; and (e) the relationship with the victim; and (e) the family relationship; and (e) the status of criminal conviction in the instant case’s previous conviction. Thus, the lower court’s judgment’s sentence is somewhat unreasonable and acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

Criminal facts

The Court shall have jurisdiction over the summary of the evidence and evidence.