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 for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant’s fraud crime by misunderstanding the legal principles of prosecutor 1) is a single criminal intent and constitutes a single comprehensive crime of fraud by fraud through several deceptive acts against the same victim. The method of crime is also the same.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined the instant facts charged as substantive concurrent crimes and sentenced the acquittal on the grounds that the statute of limitations has expired for fraudulent crimes listed in the separate sheet as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the relation of acceptance of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of deception was not identical to each other, and thus constitutes a substantive concurrent crime, and determined that the Defendant’s act of deception was not identical to the victim, and that the Defendant’s act of fraud listed in the attached list of the instant facts charged in the judgment of the lower court (the part from July 26, 2007 to December 28, 2007) was acquitted on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired.

B. In the case of fraud for deliberation by the party, where the money was acquired by deception over several occasions with the same victim and the method of the crime is identical, only the comprehensive crime of fraud shall be established if the criminal intent is single and the method of the crime is identical. However, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do508, Jun. 27, 1997). In light of the above legal principles, in the case of this case, health class, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant has repeatedly committed deception against the same victim several times, and ② the defendant has repeatedly committed deception against the same victim.