All the judgment below is reversed.

As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (b) the Defendant agreed with some victims; and (c) the sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first crime as indicated in the original judgment; and (d) the second, third, and fourth crimes as indicated in the lower judgment).

2. Determination

A. As to the defendant's argument about the crime No. 1 of the holding of the court below, the defendant planned to commit the crime in a fatal manner, such as physical coloring the object of the crime through an authorized brokerage office, the defendant has exercised a considerable tangible power, such as gathering the head of a female victim's head and assault several times, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental impulses, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental impulses, and the defendant deposited KRW 2 million for the victim at the trial, and the defendant is living in a old life due to divorce and employment.

Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, including the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, and favorable circumstances, the lower court appears to be somewhat heavy punishment in view of the following: (a) the conditions of various sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime; and (b) equity with the case of

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

B. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion regarding the crimes Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the judgment of the court below, the court below held that evidence Nos. 1, 12, and 14 seized against the Defendant should be confiscated.

However, on January 22, 2013, the above articles committed a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special robbery, rape, etc.) against the victim and again committed the same crime against the victim on the 24th day of the same month.