The judgment below

The part concerning the crime No. 4 and 5 of the judgment of the first instance is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the District Court of the Speaker.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the fourth and fifth crimes in the first instance judgment

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the fraud portion against the victim AB is that the Defendant does not have the right to sell and purchase real estate because he/she did not receive delegation from the owner, and even if he/she received investment funds from the victim AB, he/she does not have the intent or ability to complete payment. On October 4, 2007, the victim AB is in charge of selling commercial buildings and unsold apartment units in lots. The victim AB is in charge of selling commercial buildings and unsold apartment units. The amount of the principal and the sales amount after three months are paid as profit.

On October 16, 2007, when it receives a remittance of KRW 10 million from the above victims as investment money, the victim AB made a false statement on October 16, 2007, and it receives KRW 10 million from the above victims under the pretext of investment money, and on June 30, 2008, when preparing investment money to the victim AB for the selling business of the defendant, the victim would pay the previous investment money and profits to the victim if he establishes the right to collateral security on the real estate owned by the victim and terminate the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security at an early date.

In short, it is false that the above victim obtained the pecuniary profit equivalent to the nearest right of the claim amounting to KRW 20 million and the maximum amount of the claim amount of KRW 20 million by requiring the above victim to register the establishment of the right to collateral, the maximum amount of the claim amount of KRW 20 million on the real estate owned by him.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning on the premise that the statute of limitations has not been completed by deeming this part of the facts charged as a single comprehensive crime.

(c)

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

1) In the case of fraud, in which money or property gains are acquired by deception on several occasions for the same victim, if the criminal intent is single and the method of crime is the same, only a single crime of fraud shall be established.