1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the crime No. 6 of the crime list (1) in the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① one year of imprisonment, additional collection, ② the second judgment: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, additional collection, and 6 months of imprisonment, and additional collection) of the judgment of the court below.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the court below rendered an appeal against the defendant as to the judgment of ex officio as to the crime list (1) 6 of the crime committed under paragraph (1) of the same Article, crime list (2) 6 of the crime list (2), and crime paragraph (3) of the same Article, and each of the above appeal cases was filed by this court. The court rendered a decision to hold concurrent trials as to the above appeal cases. The first and second of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant, the crime No. 6 of the crime list (1) 5 of the crime list (2) of the crime list under paragraph (1) of the same Article in the judgment of the court of second instance, crime No. 6 of the crime list (2) of the crime list in paragraph (3) of the same Article, and crime No. 38 (1) of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal

3. It is reasonable to respect the judgment of the court of first instance where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court of first instance on the allegation of unfair sentencing on each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) 1 through 5 of the crime committed in the judgment of the court of second instance, and the sentencing of the court of first instance is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, in the case where the judgment of the court of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing in this part is too unreasonable and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. As such, the facts of the crime of the judgment of the court below are stated.