The judgment below

Part concerning the crime Nos. 4 and 5 of the judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

In this case.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, four months, and five months, respectively, for the crimes of Articles 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the lower judgment.

2) As to the lower judgment, each of the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds that sentencing was unfair.

Therefore, the appellate court prior to the sending of the case accepted the prosecutor's unfair argument in the sentencing, reversed the part of the judgment below except the compensation order, and sentenced the imprisonment for three years, four years, and five years for the crimes in the first, second, third, and sixth crimes in the judgment below.

3) The Defendant again brought a final appeal against the judgment of the lower court before remanding.

Therefore, the Supreme Court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the fraud of the victim AB on October 4, 2007 and the fraud on October 16, 2007, among the judgment of the party before remanding.

The above part of the judgment of the court below and the remaining guilty part of the crime No. 4 and No. 5 of the judgment of the court below were sentenced to a single punishment due to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The whole part of the judgment of the court below prior to remand was reversed and remanded to this court.

B. In accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding the scope of the judgment of this court, the part on the crime Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the judgment of the court of original judgment prior to the remand is separately determined. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part on the crime No. 4 and 5

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Although Defendant asserted only unfair sentencing on the ground of appeal against the original judgment, the lower court asserted that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in the trial after remanding the case, this part of the allegation cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal as it was subsequent to the lapse of the period for filing an appeal.

The sentence of the lower court (6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 4 and 5 of its holding) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

3. Grounds for appeal ex officio.