The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The punishment of the original judgment against the accused (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on October 29, 2013 to six months with prison labor due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicle) by the District Court on August 28, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 28, 2014. Since the offense of the lower judgment against the Defendant is in the relationship between the above fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the latter part of Article

3. According to the conclusion of the judgment below, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows after hearing.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts constituting a crime and evidence admitted by this court is as stated in the judgment of the court below, except for adding "the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (Dowing Vehicles) at the District Court on October 29, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 28, 2014" to the first head of the facts constituting a crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus, all of them are cited pursuant

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. From among concurrent offenders, even though the reason for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act appears to have reached approximately KRW 200 million, the Defendant did not recover from damage despite the fact that the defrauded did not reach KRW 200 million. However, in view of the agreement that the Defendant agreed to compensate for the amount of damage within three months after release, it would be deemed that the damage was recovered at present.