The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the conflict and the habitual conflict.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to paragraphs (1), (f) through (k) of the judgment of the court below, there is no fact that the Defendant, as described in this part of the judgment of the court below, has paid money from the injured party, such as that of this part.

(2) No. 1-3 of the original judgment.

In relation to paragraphs (e) through (e), although the Defendant took money from the damaged person as described in this part, it was caused by a single criminal intent, this constitutes an attempt to commit one of the crimes, including three attempted crimes, not by a single criminal intent.

(2) The Defendant did not incur any injury to the victim I in the judgment of the court below.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. A. The prosecutor of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment added to the name of the crime in the trial of the party, and applied for the permission of the Amendments to Bill of Indictment as stated in the facts charged in Section B. 2 below, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it was changed by the permission of this court.

B. On July 12, 2017, the Defendant’s defense counsel expressed his/her intention not to punish the victim C prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment. As such, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the indictment as to this part of the facts charged, since the Defendant’s defense counsel expressed his/her intention not to prosecute prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

misunderstanding of the legal principles to the effect that it must be made.

This paper examines ex officio, without legitimate grounds for appeal, the appeal period and subsequent arguments.

(2) On May 26, 2009, the injured party C (69) received KRW 109,080,000 of the land compensation due to the fact that the land of brigade-gun, one of its own possession, was incorporated into the E site for the rearrangement project. The Defendant’s mother-child F was farming out from the above land.