The judgment below

We reverse the part of the crimes in Section 1 of the judgment I, Section 2 of the judgment and Section 3 of the judgment.

The defendant shall be held.

1. The grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) are too unreasonable for each sentence of the lower court (the crime of paragraph 1 of the Decision I: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, each of the crimes of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Decision I: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, each of the crimes of Articles II and III: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years).

2. In the case where a criminal intent is single and the method of committing a crime is the same, in several times with respect to the same victim who was reversed ex officio as to each part of the crimes in Class II and III of the judgment I, a single crime shall be established (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4862, Feb. 11, 200). Even if a final judgment is final and conclusive due to other crimes, the comprehensive crime shall not be divided into two, but shall be treated as a crime after the final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2767, Feb. 25, 1986; 2001Do3312, Aug. 21, 2001). According to the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following facts shall be acknowledged:

① On November 13, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for fraud at the Seoul East District Court on August 13, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 2, 2014 (hereinafter “final judgment”) (hereinafter “final judgment”). ② On August 21, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of fraud in the same court on August 29, 2014 (hereinafter “final judgment”) and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2014 (hereinafter “final judgment”). The facts charged under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the lower court constituted “the crime of defrauding the victim C under the pretext of the purchase price” from January 24, 2014 to September 17, 2015, and it is clear that this constitutes a single criminal act with respect to the same victim, and thus, it constitutes a comprehensive crime at the time of the final judgment.

If so, the crimes of Section 1 of the judgment No. 1 in the judgment of the court below shall be regarded as concurrent crimes of Section 2 and Section 1 in the judgment of the court below and Section 37 in the judgment of the court below, and one punishment shall be determined in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act.