We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The judgment of the court below of the second instance [2017 order 1053].

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one month) is too unreasonable.

(b) The above-mentioned sentence that the first instance judgment of the prosecutor was applied to the defendant is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor.

A. The court held that each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated and tried, and each of the offenses against the defendant at the time of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

B. According to the records, ① the facts constituting the crime listed in the table of crime No. 1 attached to the original judgment (the fraud against the victim J on August 17, 2016) of the crime listed in the table of crime No. 4 attached to the original judgment (the fraud against the victim J on August 17, 2016) are the same as the facts constituting the crime of the crime of the case [2017 senior group 1053] in the judgment of the court below (the fraud against the victim J on August 17, 2016). ② The case of the court below in the judgment of the court of first instance is acknowledged as having been prosecuted on May 23, 2017.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below of the second instance [2017 order 1053] of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding guilty of this part of the case, even though the court below should pronounce a judgment dismissing the public prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the public prosecution against the crime of the second case was instituted again for the case in which the public prosecution was

3. In conclusion, the court below's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the error of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment which is used again] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court.