The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and August and fine of 2,500,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.

Of the crimes listed in the holding of the court below, the court below decided to punish each specific offender of violation of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (part of Article 2017Dadan2630 Paragraph (1) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders) due to the violation of the matters to be observed in the attached Table 1 5 / 1 / 5 / among the crimes listed in the judgment of the court below, in applying Articles 39 Paragraph (3) and 9-2 Paragraph (1) 1 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, while the crime of violation of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders due to the violation of the matters to be observed in the attached Table 1 6 through 19 / 19 / among the crimes listed in the judgment of the court below (the remaining part of paragraph (1) of the same Article of the same Article) is in a mutually competitive relationship with each other.

Considering that there are concurrent crimes between each other in the decision of the court below and each other in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, two years of imprisonment for the defendant

However, since the statutory penalty for the violation of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. for Specific Criminal Offenders due to the violation of the matters to be observed as set forth in 1/5 of the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below is stipulated only by a fine not exceeding 10 million won, the imprisonment shall not be selected.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on statutory punishment for the violation of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Offenders due to the violation of the code of practice, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the judgment below cannot

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and thus, on the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing.