A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

. Prosecutors;

A. Defendant 1) When the Defendant committed fraud against the victim E, the Defendant only decided to conduct a “maga shop” business without the age-based official sales right between the victim and the victim, and there was sufficient intent and ability to promote the business, so there was no falsity of deceiving the victim, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

B) At the time of the fraud against the victim D, the Defendant had no intent and ability to promote the import of the spool via V, and there was no deception of the victim and there was no scope of fraud. 2) Each punishment of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. According to each statement of the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquitted portion of the judgment of the court below of first instance), the defendant did not have the intent and ability to conclude a contract for the supply of goods between X and the victim at the time when the defendant received money from the victim, and did not have the intent and ability to supply DNA clothes and shoes to the victim. Therefore, even if the criminal intent to obtain fraud against the above victim was sufficiently recognized, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio due to the consolidation, the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty part of the judgment of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance. The court decided to jointly examine each appeal case.

However, each of the above appeals cases shall be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the convictions of the first judgment and the second judgment cannot be maintained as they are.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio destruction.