A. Although the defendant had a record of being punished twice as a crime of fraud with similar contents prior to the crime of this case, the crime of this case was actually the same and should be punished together. However, even if the victim's complaint was delayed, it is merely that the "AO" company operated by the non-indicted R was an employee and was involved in the crime of this case. Thus, the defendant should be viewed to be qualitatively different from the crime of this case, which is the business owner. However, the judgment of the court below that recognized the habitualness of the fraud of the defendant based on the above punishment record is unfair because it was due to the misunderstanding of facts Act.

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

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination of the argument of the misunderstanding of facts in relation to the assertion of habitual fraud refers to the nature of the actor as a habit of repeated fraud. In determining the existence of such habition, the criminal record of fraud may be important data for determination. However, even if there is no criminal record of fraud, where the habition of fraud is recognized by taking into account the frequency, means, methods, and motives of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5774, Oct. 28, 2005; 2009Do5075, Sept. 10, 2009). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the criminal act in this case was committed repeatedly against many and unspecified victims for a prolonged period of not less than 2 years, by comparing the criminal records in this case with the records and circumstances at the time of the crime in this case.