The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 20 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In other words, the lower court’s judgment that sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of imprisonment by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the grounds for a suspended sentence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in matters of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the grounds for a suspended sentence, even though the Defendant committed each of the crimes in the 2017 Highest 17 Highest 1719 cases during the period of repeated crime and constitutes disqualified persons for a suspended sentence. 2) In other words, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and probation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

The defendant and his defense counsel explicitly withdrawn misunderstanding of facts on the first day of this Court.

2. In light of the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles, the record reveals that the Defendant was released on January 29, 2010, on July 31, 2009, after having been sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, a crime of fraud, etc. by the Daejeon District Court.

4.8. 8. The above facts acknowledged that the period of parole has expired, and each of the crimes in the case of 2017 order 1719 which was found guilty at the court below committed at the court below within three years after the execution date (the expiration of the period of parole). When a sentence is imposed for each of the above crimes, the court below suspended the execution of a sentence while sentenced the defendant to imprisonment, although the execution of a sentence cannot be suspended under the proviso of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for disqualification of suspended sentence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor's assertion

3. We examine the determination of the grounds for unfair sentencing by both parties, and examine some of the crimes of this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant, who had been punished twice, including the punishment for fraud, such as this case, was in the period of a repeated crime of the same kind.