All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, defendant R and M respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant R, M) Defendant R, and M merely employed as an employee of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) operated by Defendant A on the basis of fact-misunderstanding (Defendant R, M), and there was no conspiracy or participation in Defendant A’s fraud as indicated in the judgment of the second instance judgment.

B. The punishment of each court below (the first and second sentence): the imprisonment of April and the imprisonment of October, the defendant R and M (the second sentence): the imprisonment of June, the suspended execution of execution of the sentence of six months, the community service work hours of 160 hours) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the reasons for Defendant A’s appeal ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal.

This Court held the appeal cases against each judgment of the court below jointly and tried, and since each of the offenses in the judgment of the court of first and second level against the defendant is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of second instance that separately provided for punishment for each of the above crimes, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of second instance and the judgment of second instance cannot be maintained any more in this respect, while the part against Defendant A among the judgment of first and second judgment of second instance are reversed ex officio in the following cases

"A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this case, in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, punishment for such crime shall be imposed. If a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be ruled concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that punishment shall not be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity or mitigation or exemption of such punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 200