All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (in the first and second instances: imprisonment with prison labor for each of six months) is too unreasonable.

2. The first and second judgment of the court below rendered each judgment on the defendant's ex officio judgment, and all the defendants appealed, and the court of the court of the first instance decided to hold all the above cases together for a trial.

However, since each crime of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, each of the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision against the defendant is reversed in its entirety by Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there are grounds for reversal ex officio as seen above, and without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, it is decided as follows through oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the original judgment, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and Article 347 of the Criminal Act, Article 70(1)3 of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business (the use of stolen debit cards) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes (Article 35 of the Criminal Act for each crime subject to a resolution to judge KRW 2);

1. The circumstances that are favorable to the defendant and the defendant have many records of punishment for fraud, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes and reflects the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, and the fact that the amount of fraud by the resolution of the original judgment is not significant. In particular, each crime of the second judgment of this case is committed during the same repeated crime period, and the amount of fraud by the second judgment of this case is larger, and that the victim and the victims have not yet agreed to do so are disadvantageous to the defendant.