All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Habitual Fraud)

A. As to the assertion that fraud cannot be established with respect to the normally settled part of the crime of fraud, if there is a provision of property by deception, thereby infringing on the victim’s property, thereby constituting fraud. A reasonable consideration was paid.

shall not cause any damage to the entire property of the victim.

The establishment of fraud does not affect the establishment of fraud.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12928 Decided December 9, 2010). The lower court, from December 2009 to October 201, paid part of the amount of goods supplied by Defendant B on the settlement date, when Defendant B supplied and acquired goods equivalent to KRW 100 million from several victims, including AK, in the name of V Hospital, AF, AO, and AY, from December 2009 to October 201.

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant B.

B. According to the record as to the assertion that part of the fraud was erroneous, since it can be known that the goods acquired by Defendant B from the victim HZ on April 30, 201 are German red tea equivalent to KRW 40,950,00, the lower court erred by recognizing this as the German red tea equivalent to KRW 78,830,000.

However, even if it is corrected, since Defendant B was prosecuted for a single comprehensive crime of habitual fraud, the total sum of the amount and the amount of profit acquired by deception from other victims exceeds 500 million won, this case is concerned.