A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.

A. Error 1) As to the fraud of the victimY (2014No1562), the Defendant was only a person who was awarded a subcontract for the project for the development of the Youth Training Center promoted by T, and the Defendant did not receive money from the victim Y in collusion with T and W. 2) As to the fraud of the victim B (2) (2) with regard to the fact that the Defendant and the victim in an internal-related relationship (2014No1564), the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant promoted the film set project, and there was no fact that the Defendant acquired money by deceiving the victim B.

3) As to the fraud of the victimN (2015No817), the Defendant had a friendly relationship with the politicians, and did not have acquired the money from the victim. 4) The amount claimed by the victim as to the fraud of the victim AM (2015No817) (2015No817) was used as the establishment of a temporary office office in the shipping area, the cost of temporary electric input and installation, the cost of taking over the corporation with the victim as the representative director, and there was no fact that the victim acquired the money from the victim.

B. The lower court’s respective sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment for six months, the second instance court: imprisonment for three years, and the third instance court: imprisonment for two years) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, this Court decided to hold the case jointly with the defendant's appeal against each judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is such reason of ex officio reversal.