Of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the part of the case No. 2020 proviso 1089, respectively, shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and second instance: imprisonment for a term of 200 high order of 1089: imprisonment for a term of 2 months and 2 years for the remaining crimes in the holding) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(b)the sentence sentenced to the first instance judgment of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. Among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, each appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance was consolidated by examining the first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance ex officio the part of the case No. 1089, and each case against the judgment of the court of second instance. Since each of the crimes of first instance and the crime of second instance No. 2020, first instance No. 1089 in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of the offenses under Article 38 of the Criminal

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the part of the case No. 2020 higher group 1089 cannot be maintained as it is.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court in the judgment of the second instance, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Of the judgment of the second instance, the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the sentencing factors in this court regarding each of the remaining crimes in the judgment of the second instance were already removed in the course of the pleadings of the lower court, and there is no change in the situation in the sentencing guidelines with the matters on which the sentencing conditions are the conditions after the sentence of the lower court was made.

The above circumstances and the number of the Internet fraud crimes committed by the Defendant against many and unspecified persons is considerably poor and the victims and the number of crimes are very high. As such, it is necessary to impose strict liability on the act of disturbing the order of electronic commerce, the amount of damage is considerable, but the damage is not recovered properly, and the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and means of crime, results, etc. are followed after crimes.