All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The sentence of imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) Since the crime of this case by misunderstanding the legal principles is related to the crime of this case by deceiving the money against the same victim, recognizing the continuity and uniformity of the crime, and the method of the crime is the same as the method of the crime, Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes applies. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on the ground that the crime of this case is

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle by the prosecutor

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the ground that the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) constitutes a case where there is no proof of

(However, as long as the court below found a guilty of each crime of fraud within the same facts charged, it did not separately be acquitted in the text). (A) The "amount of profit" under Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes means the sum of the amount of profit when a crime of simple crime is constituted, or a crime of universal crimes, and it does not mean the sum of the amount of profit when a crime of concurrent crimes can be punished.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do582, Jun. 13, 1989; 2009Do8265, Jul. 28, 2011). (b) In a case of fraud, where the money is acquired by deception through several times against the same victim, the one who is accused of another through the same method for a certain period from the same person who is involved in mistake.