We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and the second judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this Court tried to concurrently examine the appeal cases against the two original judgments, and each of the crimes in the holding of the original judgment is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's grounds for appeal, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of each judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356, 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational embezzlement, the choice of imprisonment), Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 152 (1) and 31 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of the perjury and the choice of imprisonment) of the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Articles 153, 152 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of confessions;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent offenders is that the Defendant has instigated a person, etc. to commit embezzlement and fraud against his/her own or his/her own, and to avoid liability thereafter, and that the crime is not good, and that the sum of the amount of embezzlement and fraud is not more than KRW 50 million, and that there is no agreement with the victims.

On the other hand, the defendant.