All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

The defendant is each of the crimes in the second instance judgment of 2014, the second half of 1695, the second half of 2014, the second half of 597.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing: the first instance court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of 2014 High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of the High Court of 2015

2. We examine ex officio determination.

The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below in the first, second, and third cases, and the court decided to jointly examine the above appeal cases.

However, among the judgment of the first instance court, each of the crimes of the first instance judgment 2014 senior group 1695, 2014 senior group 597 senior group 597 senior group 2 and 3 of the judgment and each of the crimes of the second and third judgment in the judgment of the first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the first instance as to each of the crimes of the second class 2014 senior group 1695, 2014 senior group 597 senior group 597 of the judgment

3. Of the judgment of the court below in the first instance, the following facts are favorable to the Defendant: (a) as to the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing on each crime of the 2015 senior group 2429 cases; (b) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s criminal act; and (c) the Defendant’s deceptive money (total of KRW 9.5 million) did not appear to be the larger amount

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime, and that the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim I and did not recover from the damage is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., as well as the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the punishment for each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed unfair and unfair.

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

4. The conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance is followed.