A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

The defendant against the judgment of the court below of the second instance.

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles did not mislead the victim, but did not deceiving the victim, and had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing, and the victim unilaterally paid the borrowed money to the victim, but the victim unilaterally paid the borrowed money to the Defendant’s insurance premium under the name of the Defendant. 2) The respective punishment of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months) of the court of first instance is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The first and second appeals cases were consolidated and tried by the court below.

However, the crime of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a separate crime and two years of suspended execution, was committed before July 20, 2012, which became final and conclusive, and the crime of the judgment of the court of second instance is subsequently committed, and thus does not constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the criminal facts of each judgment of the court of first instance should

Therefore, each judgment of the court below shall be judged separately.

B. On July 12, 2012, the judgment of the court of first instance is recognized as having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of fraud at the Daejeon District Court on July 12, 2012, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 20, 2012. The crime of the first instance judgment against the defendant and the above fraud for which the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive on July 20, 2012 are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of first instance in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained. However, even if the defendant's assertion of mistake