The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A in the first and second judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and six months.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment of the court below (the court below's judgment No. 1: the imprisonment of a maximum of five years, a short of three years, and a second instance court's decision: the imprisonment of a maximum of 1 year, a short of 1 year and confiscation, and an order to complete a program for the prevention of sexual traffic for 40 hours) is too unreasonable in light of the following:

Defendant

In full view of the fact that the CD above Defendant recognized the crime and opposed to it, and that the amount of damage caused by the fraud is a relatively small amount, the sentence of the lower court (a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a year and for a period of forty hours) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

We examine the reasons for appeal by Defendant A ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.

The court of the first and second cases of appeal against the above defendant were reviewed concurrently. The crimes of the first and second cases of appeal against the above defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crimes of the first and second cases of appeal against the above defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be punished as a single sentence within the term of punishment for aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, the part against the above defendant cannot be maintained as it is.

In addition, since the term "juvenile" to which the Juvenile Act applies refers to a person under the age of 19 (Article 2 of the Juvenile Act), it is apparent that the defendant is under the age of 19 at the time of adjudication to be subject to the Juvenile Act, and whether the defendant is a juvenile under Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act shall be determined at the time of adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do539, Apr. 24, 1990, etc.). The above defendant, as a DNA student, was sentenced to an illegal sentence pursuant to Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act because he falls under the "juvenile" under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of pronouncement of the first judgment of the court below, but it is true that the defendant was under the age of 19 and does not fall under the juvenile under the age of 19. Thus, the above defendant was sentenced to an illegal sentence against the above defendant.