Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two months for the crime of "2014 Highest 3271" in the judgment of the court below, and the remainder.

A. As to the fraud of the victim AC among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court convicted the Defendant, even though the Defendant had no criminal intent to commit fraud at the time of borrowing, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the records show that the above judgment was finalized on February 26, 2011 after the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and four months with prison labor for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on February 18, 2011. In a case where it is found guilty of the fraud of the victim AC among the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and after examining whether mitigation or exemption of punishment is mitigated or exempted at the same time in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment should be determined separately from the other crimes committed after the above judgment becomes final and conclusive. However, the court below found all of the facts charged in the instant case guilty as a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on ex post facto concurrent crimes, and changed Article 23 of the Criminal Act from "each Clause 232" to "No 32".