The judgment of the court below to the same effect is just in holding that the act of receiving similar goods, which is prohibited by Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts, does not include deception, and the act of receiving similar goods itself violates the above Act and the crime of fraud in this case is a separate crime that differs from the constituent requirements, and thus the form of each other's act or the protection of legal interests and interests are different. Thus, the two crimes should be deemed as a substantive concurrent relation, not a commercial concurrent relation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7428, Apr. 28, 2004). It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed on the Defendants, the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants are without merit, and the Defendants’ remaining grounds of appeal are against the violation of the rules of evidence, deviations from the limits of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and misapprehensions of the legal principles, and is merely erroneous in the judgment of the lower court on the selection and probative value of evidence or finding facts based thereon.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.