All the judgment of the court below are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Each of the original decisions (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

The grounds for appeal by authority shall be examined ex officio prior to the judgment.

The Court decided to consolidate each appeal case against the original judgment.

However, since each of the judgments of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, in the event that it is combined and ruled at the same time, one of these crimes must be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below cannot be upheld as it is.

Therefore, the court below's decision is reversed in its entirety pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows, after oral argument.

[Re-written judgment] The facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the original judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 355 of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. Subsequent to Article 37 of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes: Provided, That Article 39 (1) shall apply;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the defendant's fault, there is no particular criminal record against the defendant, part of the damage amount (30 million won part) to the KTTK KTK KGK KGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

On the other hand, however,