The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of five million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: the imprisonment of one year and the fine of five million won, the second instance court: the imprisonment of three months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles (the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below among the judgment of the court below No. 1), the time when the defendant received the money in No. 3 and 5 (the amount in No. 5 million won as of July 31, 2006, the amount in No. 3 million won as of March 16, 2007, and the relation between the defendant and the victim C, etc., the above money was not given as the name of solving the problem of Co., Ltd. or the defendant was fraudulently obtained by deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim by modifying the contents of false statement under the single criminal intent.

Therefore, the crime of fraud against the key money is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime against the victim C who is found guilty.

As such, the statute of limitations for the prosecution has been set aside.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of acquittal on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the fraud crime with respect to the key money constitutes separate crimes, and the statute of limitations has lapsed. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment of the first instance judgment in sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered a judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (section 1 of the lower judgment) 1, on the ground that this part of the facts charged differs from the overall crime of fraud and the method of committing crimes against the victim C, and thus, separate crimes are established. The prosecution against this part of the facts charged is instituted on the ground that the seven-year statute of limitations under Article 249(1) of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730, Dec. 21, 2007) has lapsed, and that the prosecution against this part of the facts charged was instituted subsequent to the lapse of seven years.

(ii)..