The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that from the date of this judgment.

A. Defendant 1) There was no intentional deception on the Defendant with respect to each fraud against the victim E, M, and R by mistake of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The facts charged against the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) committed against the victim D are different from a summary order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 17300) and the method of committing the crime, the form of the crime, the circumstances, and the method of committing the crime, and thus, it cannot be deemed a single crime.

2. Determination:

A. According to the records, the Defendant’s defense counsel at the first instance trial did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal. On January 11, 2016, each of the Defendant’s defense counsel was served on January 18, 2016, and on January 18, 2016. However, on February 111, 2016, the national defense counsel submitted a statement of grounds for appeal alleging misconception of facts and unfair sentencing.

The court of appeals shall, in principle, dismiss an appeal by decision pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act if a legitimate reason for appeal is not submitted within the period for submission of the written reason for appeal. However, Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The court of appeals may render an ex officio adjudication with respect to the grounds that affect the judgment, even if the grounds for appeal are not included in the written reason for appeal.” This applies to the case where the defendant fails to submit the written reason for appeal within a legitimate period (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2653, May 9, 1997). Thus, as seen below, the court of appeals shall ex officio examine the defendant’s appeal as to the defendant’s appeal.

2) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts was submitted after the lapse of the submission period for the written grounds for appeal, and is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and the grounds for ex officio investigation under the proviso of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are ex officio.