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 becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On January 12, 2008, as to the acquittal of facts or the acquittal of facts, the fraud was committed on January 12, 2008, with the point of the fraud on April 29, 2018 and with the same criminal intent, the one who acquired money under the same name from the same victim is a single criminal offense.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and three hundred hours of community service order) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a single and continuous crime committed against the same victim in a property crime, such as a judgment of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, with respect to a single and continuous crime, each crime may constitute a single comprehensive crime.

However, whether each crime constitutes a single crime

Whether a concurrent crime is a concurrent crime

As a result, the application of a special law that requires the aggravated punishment on the basis of the amount of damage is not only different, but also has a significant impact on the defendant until the judgment of sentencing and the prescription of prosecution and the res judicata. Therefore, the judgment should be made carefully.

In particular, the unity and continuity of the criminal intent were the method and mode of the individual crime, motive of the crime, time interval between each crime, and whether there was a interruption or renewal of the criminal intent, i.e., whether there was a subsequent crime, while the use of the same opportunity or relationship continues.

A reasonable determination based on logical and empirical rules ought to be made by comprehensively examining whether there are any circumstances to be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11318, Oct. 27, 2016). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was found to have borrowed money at intervals of three months on the ground that it is false to the victim B, who was in a relationship with the former, on two occasions, that the mother’s surgery expense is necessary, and all of them continued to use the same opportunity or relationship with the latter with a single and continuous intention.

Therefore, it is true.