All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance court’s sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment) of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 stated that the Defendant and his defense counsel appealed against the lower judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing on each of the grounds of unfair sentencing on the first and third trial dates. However, according to each appellate brief submitted by the Defendant against the lower judgment, it is apparent that the Defendant alleged mistake of facts and unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, and there was no clear withdrawal of the allegation of mistake of facts on the trial date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6834, Feb. 26, 2003). The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the Defendant’s act is related to the scamsing crime before being arrested to the police in this case. 2) Each of the punishments of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1: 2002Do6834, Feb.

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

The judgment of the court below was rendered against the defendant, and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant filed an appeal against the whole of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings.

However, the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to each of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant, around November 2018, was used for licensing crimes.