The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment has become final.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for ten months) by the lower court is too unreasonable;

(1) The defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, and in the grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant, it did not state to the purport that the reported content on the title trust portion with I is not false, in the grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted not only the purport of claiming a mistake of facts on the date of the first and second trial but also the grounds for appeal on the date of the second trial, and therefore, they claim that only the grounds for unfair sentencing should be the grounds for appeal. Thus

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor examined the facts charged against the defendant ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment with the purport that "I did not obtain title trust with respect to senior military P, Q, and R three lots of money from C, and the defendant knew that I received money fromO and that I established a right to collateral security for the purpose of securing the fact that I borrowed money fromO, and that I was subject to the judgment by this court, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant could no longer be maintained.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal. The Defendant stated in the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant that “the Defendant filed a complaint with I that he did not confirm the facts and did not confirm the victims properly.” On the first day of the trial of the first instance, the Defendant recognized the facts of the criminal facts in the judgment of the first instance, and recognized K, etc. without properly verifying the facts.”