The judgment below

The part of the judgment No. 1 is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

1. The sentence sentenced by the original court on the summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of three million won for the first offence in the market, and a fine of three million won for each of the crimes in the holding 2) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (part 1 of the judgment of the court below) is examined prior to the prosecutor's determination of the grounds for appeal.

In the judgment of the court below, the crime of fraud which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below has the relation of the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of Criminal Act.

However, according to the records, the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below is only a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, such as the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) which became final and conclusive on July 2, 2011, after having been sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment by the Busan District Court on June 24, 201, and the defendant was sentenced to a more than six-month suspended sentence by the Busan District Court on July 2, 2011, and there was no concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, in determining the punishment for the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, the equity should be taken into account when

In this respect, the part concerning the first crime in the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The prosecutor's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing (part 2 of the judgment of the court below) is clear that there are various circumstances that cannot be less than that of the crime of this case, such as the defendant committed again the crime of this case during the repeated crime period by the previous criminal records of fraud in the judgment of the court below despite the fact that the defendant had been sentenced twice as a criminal punishment for fraud, and the defendant used active deception methods such as forging or uttering private documents to acquire money from the victim E, but the damaged amount of the crime of this case is limited to 4 million won, and the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant recognized the defendant's mistake and reflects it.