The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As to the case of misunderstanding of facts [2014 Godan6101] decision of the court below [2014 Godan6101], there is no means that the defendant would have the victims obtain a three billion won fake payment guarantee certificate from the victims, and the defendant would have paid in lieu of the victims the money that the defendant would have to receive by using a three billion won fake payment guarantee certificate from the business financing agreement between M Co., Ltd., and since the above company did not properly prepare related documents in the above company and did not issue a payment guarantee certificate due to the occurrence of a security problem, the defendant could not be deemed as deceiving the victims. As to the case of [2015 Godan3158] decision of the court below, the defendant only received money for the expenses necessary for issuing the payment guarantee certificate, but did not receive the payment guarantee certificate as the condition for issuing the payment guarantee certificate, but did not receive the payment guarantee certificate as the victim failed to prepare the necessary documents, the crime of fraud is not established.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. On February 7, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended sentence for occupational embezzlement at the Suwon District Court on February 7, 2013, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on October 14, 2013. Since each crime of criminal facts in the judgment below is a crime committed before the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity and cases where the above judgment becomes final and conclusive simultaneously with the crime under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not deal with the above concurrent crimes is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it will be examined in the following paragraphs.

3. The Defendant made the same assertion as the above grounds for appeal even in the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.

The lower court is in its reasoning for judgment.