We reverse the remainder of the judgment with the exception of fraud against victims E.

The defendant shall be held.

A. Since the Defendant did not have an intention to acquire a mistake, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime of fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the crime of fraud against the victim E: imprisonment for two months, and imprisonment for three years) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the fraud of the victim R among the facts charged in the instant case at the trial of the court below. The subject of the judgment was changed by this court. On the other hand, since each of the crimes committed by the Defendant except for the fraud committed against the victim E among the crimes in the instant case was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below rendered a single sentence with regard to the above crimes, it became impossible to maintain the judgment in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this paper examines the following.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the fraud for the victim E, U,W, J, K, Q was committed. ① At the time, the victim had an individual liability of KRW 80,000,000 at the time, and was a person with bad credit standing since 4-5 years prior to the instant crime. ② The victims of the instant case appear to be all older than 70 years old and engaged in agriculture, etc., and the victims K seems to be disabled, ③ the Defendant was punished by money from the victims, ③ was used for personal consumption, such as the payment of a fine, repayment to the Defendant, or gambling funds, etc.