The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

The judgment below

The facts constituting the crime listed in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) are the same as the victim, but each crime was committed at intervals of two months, and the contents of each deception are different, so the criminal intent is single or the method of committing the crime is not the same.

Therefore, each of the above crimes is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

However, as the lower court committed an unlawful act omitting the application of the Act on the Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes, the lower court cannot maintain any further.

3. As such, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The gist of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows: (a) except for the alteration of “1.1. Defendant’s partial statement” in the summary of the evidence of the judgment of the court below to “1.1. Defendant’s oral statement” into “the Defendant’s own court statement”; and (b) such alteration is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (elective of imprisonment);

1. The reason for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects on the fact that the defendant has no record of being punished in excess of the amount of punishment or fine for the same kind of crime is favorable.

On the other hand, even though the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is a large amount, the damage has not been recovered until the trial is in fact, and the Defendant agrees with the victim.