Defendant shall be sentenced to five years of imprisonment and fine of one billion won.

A. The sentence imposed on Defendant 1 and the second instance (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for three years and fines for one billion won, and the second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the second instance court of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the second instance judgment on the whole of the crimes by which the defendant acquired a total of KRW 6990 million from the victim B seven times, shall be two times of the crimes by deception (the second instance judgment on the crime of KRW 1).

B.(1) and (2) by committing the crimes described in paragraph(3) below:

가. ②¹항과 ②²항 부분에 해당한다

[] As a single comprehensive crime, each of the following crimes was determined to be in the relationship of substantive concurrent crimes. On the grounds that identity of the method of crime and the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are difficult, the judgment of not guilty on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) was judged to be not guilty on the ground that the defendant continued to commit the crime by using the same deceptive act, such as not notifying the same victim of the lack of intent and capacity to repay to the same victim under the single criminal intent who intends to acquire money continuously, and the entire crime is in the relationship of a single comprehensive crime. The second judgment of the court below contains errors of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the single comprehensive crime. 2

2. The judgment of the first and second court on the defendant's ex officio judgment was rendered, and each of the defendants filed an appeal against each of the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor respectively filed an appeal against the second judgment, and this court decided to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases.

Since each crime of the judgment of the first instance court and each crime of the second instance in the judgment of the second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, it should be punished by one order under Article 38 of the Criminal Code, the first and second judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained as they are.

However, the second judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground of the above ex officio reversal.