A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, No. 2.

A. 1) Since the amount of money obtained by deception of the facts charged No. 2 of the 1 original judgment resolution is included in the amount paid by the Defendant to the victims, it is erroneous in calculating the amount of money obtained by deception.

2) Defendant 7, on a yearly basis of the list of crimes attached to the 2nd judgment decision, was acquired by transfer from “S” as indicated in the 1 endorser, and was not forged, and was not aware that it was forged at the time of exercising the said decision. There was no fact that the Defendant, as indicated in the 2nd judgment decision, deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the victim of the amount equivalent to the discount of the bill.

B. Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 8 months, and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below upon ex officio reversal following the consolidation, the appeal cases of the court below were consolidated, and each of the offenses of the court below constitutes concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below’s judgment cannot be maintained any more.

However, even in this case, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and it is judged below.

B. Determination on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) If there is a delivery of the money due to deception in fraud with the purpose of defraudation of the money of paragraph (2) of the resolution of the original original judgment, the crime of fraud is established immediately, and even if the money is partially paid, the amount obtained by deception is not the difference between the money given from the damaged person and the money given (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6012, Oct. 11, 2007, etc.). Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is irrelevant to the mistake of the fact concerning the calculation of the amount obtained by deception, and it is merely an assertion about the actual amount of damage among the reasons for sentencing, and therefore, is not justified.

2) The summary of the facts charged in this part of the indictment No. 7 of the List of Crimes No. 2 is as follows: