The judgment below

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, each fraud listed in Nos. 1 through 28 of the annexed Table 1 to the list of crimes, and attached Form 2.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that the statute of limitations has expired

A. According to Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, the statutory penalty for each crime of fraud (each crime committed on September 24, 2005, February 28, 2006, and May 10, 2006) entered in the judgment of the court of first instance, which was found guilty of the first instance on the list of crimes Nos. 1, 2, and 5, is a fine not exceeding 10 years, or a fine not exceeding 20 million won, and thus, Article 3 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), Article 249(1)3 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) is a statute of limitations for a statute of limitations for a statute of limitations for a statute of limitations for a statute of limitations for a period not exceeding 7 years pursuant to Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, this part of the facts charged is obvious that the statute of limitations has already expired since it had already been terminated at the expiration of seven years after counting from May 30, 2013, which is the date of prosecution. Accordingly, a judgment of acquittal should be rendered pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting of this part of the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statute of limitations.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

B. In the case where the money was acquired by deception over several occasions against the same victim in each of the crimes listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, if the criminal intent is single and the method of crime is the same, the comprehensive crime of fraud is established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). Meanwhile, the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime shall run from the completion of the final criminal act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939 delivered on October 11, 2002, etc.). Each of the crimes stated in the facts charged by Doshe was committed on April 16, 2006 and April 29, 2006.

However, according to the records, this part of the crime is not only committed.