All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The court below’s order for compensation shall be revoked, and

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the fact-finding fraud, with regard to the joint criminal conduct part of the Defendant and J against the victim F, the Defendant was only able to make a telephone call between the victim and the J, and there was no conspiracy between the J and this part of the crime.

B. The punishment of each judgment of the court below on unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Part of the Defendant case was tried by combining these cases with an appeal filed against each of the lower judgment. Each of the offenses of each of the lower judgment is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, a single sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, each of the lower

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

B. According to the records of the case of compensation order in the court below, the applicant for compensation in the court below acknowledged that he was paid one million won out of the amount of damage in the investigation process of this case (the 31th of the evidence record of the court below of the second instance). Therefore, it is not reasonable to issue compensation order because the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is unclear.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of second instance, the compensation order part against the above applicant for compensation cannot be maintained.

3. The court of first instance also asserted that the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts was identical to that of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated. Whether the above evidence is the same as the statements adopted by the court of first instance or not.