The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. In a case where a person deceptions the other party through the exercise of a single criminal act, and acquires money by the same method for a certain period from the same person who is suffering from an error, it is possible to comprehensively observe it and treat it as a single crime. However, in a case where the unity and continuity of a criminal intent is not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do1309, Nov. 28, 1989; 2004Do1751, Jun. 25, 2004). (b) The lower court determined that the lower court established the whole crime by viewing that the Defendant, from March 10, 2016 to March 29, 2016, by deceiving the victim on four occasions, such as the content and method of deceiving the victim, and the method of committing the crime, thereby taking property benefits or property benefits of 4,1340,000 won, as a single comprehensive crime.

However, all of the facts charged of this case are the same as the victim and the time of the crime is close to the victim, but each crime is in a relation of substantive concurrent crimes because it is difficult to recognize the identity and continuity of the criminal's intent because the contents of the deception and the method of the crime are not identical

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, each of the crimes of this case is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. As such, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-use]