Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts was made to receive money from the injured party as expenses for interview with D and custody, etc., which was actually used as expenses, and which was 2 million won among them was moraled to bromoer, and thus, the defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud against the injured party. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts,

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (the amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the event that several acts falling under the name of the same crime subject to ex officio judgment or continuous acts are continuously conducted for a certain period under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal intent and the benefit and protection of the law from such damage are identical, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the identity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of committing the crime is not the same, each of the crimes constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4051, Sept. 30, 2005). Each of the crimes in this case was provided by the Defendant from May 27, 2015 to June 26, 2015. Each of the acts was committed in close vicinity to time, and each act appears to have been committed repeatedly, and all of the means and methods of the crime committed with the victim and the victim are the same as a series of comprehensive acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the court below held that each of the crimes of this case is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the judgment below cannot be maintained any more.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to a trial by this court, and this is examined below.

B. The Defendant made a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.