The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court, ex officio, found the Defendant guilty of aiding and abetting fraud among the facts charged, and dealt with the Defendant as concurrent crimes with the offense of fraud and the Automobile Management Act, without statutory mitigation, even though Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act, required mitigation of punishment for aiding and abetting a crime.

Such illegality has influenced the judgment.

In this respect, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is no longer maintained.

3. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for a new judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the relevant column of the judgment below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1), 32(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 79 subparag. 13 and 53(1) of the Automobile Management Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 30 of the Criminal Act, each of the choice of punishment for a crime;

1. Article 32(2) and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of a punishment for aiding and abetting a person (each crime of aiding and abetting a person by fraud)

1. The defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being involved in the probation period for the reason of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, even though he/she was under the probation period due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (domination). The crime of fraud of this case is committed against other accomplices.