The judgment below

The part concerning the accused case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The lower court rejected an application for compensation order filed by an applicant for compensation.

The case of an application for compensation order was immediately finalized because it is not possible to appeal the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the trial of the party.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Where, ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio, several acts falling under the name of the same crime or several consecutive acts are continuously conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of such acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime, among all of them; however, where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of the crime is not the same, each of such crimes shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do4051, Sept. 30, 2005; 2018Do10779, Nov. 29, 2018). The lower court determined that among the facts of the crimes of “2018 Godan522, the facts of the crimes of [Attachment 1] through No. 1 through No. 7, No. 8, and No. 9, and the facts of “2019 Godan2527, Sept. 30, 200,” each victim was in a blanket relationship.

Examining each of the instant crimes in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the crime against the victim B was committed seven times from March 15, 2014 to February 23, 2017. The interval between individual crimes was reasonable, and some of the contents of deception are different. The crime against the victim K and the victim J is also reasonable at the time interval of individual crimes and the contents of deception are different.

Therefore, even if the victim is the same, it is difficult to see that the identity or continuity of each of the above crimes is recognized, and because the method of crime is not the same, these crimes are inclusive for each victim.