A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A. (1) Defendant (1) did not deceiving victims, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

(2) misunderstanding legal principles ① Fraud against the victim E: due to the cancellation of a seizure and collection order, the victim E does not incur any damage or obtain any pecuniary benefit.

(2) Invalidity of indication in the line of duty: As long as the defendant prepares a written agreement to fully cancel the execution of seizure and E, the creditor, and the execution of seizure, the consent of the creditor is different from that of the creditor, so that the seized objects

Even if it does not constitute a case of impairing the utility of seizure execution.

(3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts (as to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment), the Defendant established and operated two or more medical institutions.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the health room and in the trial before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 17, 2017, by being sentenced on January 13, 2017 by the Seoul Central District Court to one year and six months for fraud, etc.

Since the crime of fraud and each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive, are in a concurrent crime relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the argument of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles between the defendant and the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s deception of victims as stated in the lower judgment, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits or having money.