All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, imprisonment for 6 months and imprisonment for 3 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. As the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, each appeal case was consolidated and tried at the court of the first instance. Since each of the facts constituting a crime which the judgment of the court below issued belongs to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to simultaneously render a judgment and sentence a single punishment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio, and without having to make a judgment on the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, all of them are reversed pursuant to Articles 364 (2) and 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the pleading is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

Articles 356, 355(1) of the Criminal Act (including the occupation and the combination of occupational embezzlement), Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of embezzlement), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of embezzlement), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of fraud), each choice of imprisonment for a crime

1. Regarding the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, the period of the crime was considerably long, with respect to the sentencing of Article 1629 of the Highest 2017 Highest 1629 of the same Act, and the total amount of damage was limited to only the Defendant’s partial damage (26 million won) to the Defendant’s name in the amount of KRW 90 million, and the Defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party; the Defendant committed a crime using personal trust relationship with the victim in a transaction relation with the Highest 4875 case, which was committed by taking advantage of the victim’s personal trust relationship, and thus, the crime under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Crimes was bad, and the damage was not recovered at all, and the victim did not agree with the victim.

(b).