A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is only that the defendant received money from the victim E with gambling money, not by deceiving the victim as a building cost by deceiving him/her as stated in the facts charged.

(M) In addition, the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud between the Suwon District Court and the Sungnam Branch on August 13, 2010 to May 16, 2008, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 19, 201, and the Seoul Northern District Court on October 17, 2013 to November 13, 2009 to December 25, 201. The Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution for one year of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud between the first and December 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 25, 2013. Both of the instant and each of the instant crimes for which the said judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the case where the instant crime and each of the instant judgment becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the case where each of the instant punishment are concurrently sentenced.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209 Decided October 23, 2008). However, the lower court did not examine the following facts: (a) all of the above facts constituting an offense were stated only in the above facts constituting an offense; (b) did not state the above facts; and (c) did not find any trace of examining what the contents of the facts of the offense were.

If so, pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the court below cannot be deemed to have sentenced punishment for the crime of this case in consideration of equity in the case where each judgment becomes final and conclusive simultaneously with the case where the crime of this case is adjudicated. Thus, the judgment below cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if there are the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the above argument of mistake of facts by the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the below.

B. Circumstances that the court below legitimately stated on the assertion of mistake of facts;