All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the first sentence: 10 months of imprisonment and 2 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the court of first instance and the court of second instance decided to jointly examine each appeal case against the defendant. The first and second judgment are concurrent crimes in accordance with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are related to concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes. In this regard, the first and second judgment cannot be maintained.

Thus, the court below's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

【Reasons for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] The criminal facts against the defendant recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the entries of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Among concurrent offenders, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, even though there was a history of punishment several times due to the Internet goods transaction fraud, the Defendant committed a crime of fraud under the same veterinary law at the same time, and acquired a considerable amount by deceiving victims who are occupational offenders.

Although the total amount of damage exceeds KRW 28 million, the Defendant did not agree with the victims up to the trial, and the damage was almost not recovered.

However, part of the vehicle purchased by the victim I is owned by the defendant.