The judgment below

Among them, the part concerning each of the crimes except fraud against victims B shall be reversed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of fraud against the victim B and 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the crime of fraud against the victim B is that the defendant would have the victim B, who had committed a prison life in the Suwon detention house, use the visible vehicle attached to the prosecution by the defendant, and acquired the victim B a total of KRW 1830,000,000 through two times under the pretext of the price.

The defendant is in depth against his will.

On June 10, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny, fraud, etc. on five years and six months on January 5, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 5, 2017. This part of the crime is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime for which the judgment has become final and conclusive

The above is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant did not agree with the victim B.

The defendant has been sentenced to several times to have committed the same kind of crime and has committed these crimes again during the period of repeated crime.

The above is the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing on this part of the crime is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

B. We examine ex officio the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing on each of the remaining crimes except frauds against the victim B prior to the judgment of the court below.

Of the facts charged in the case of the 2017 Gohap375 and 2017 Gohap504 as stated in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor shall regard the name of the crime as "Habitual larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Habitual Larceny", and "specific crimes" from