All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Evidence of seizure Nos. 1 to 3, respectively.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the respective punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below was rendered to the defendant, and the defendant filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeals cases.

The judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the above argument by the defendant, on the ground that there is a ground for reversal ex officio as seen above, and the judgment below is reversed in entirety, and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept them in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

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

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. The rationale for sentencing under Articles 25(1), 31(1), 31(2), and 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., of Orders for Compensation and Sentence of Provisional Execution, is that the Defendant’s mistake is recognized and is against the Defendant’s good condition.

Meanwhile, in light of the methods, frequency, amount of damage, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, there is no good quality of the crime, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and in particular, it has not been much long since he/she was sentenced to punishment due to the fraud of the same veterinary method, and thus, the period of repeated crime is one of the period of repeated crime.