The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant for compensation on 235.

1. Considering the gist of the grounds for appeal of this case, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to determining the Defendant’s assertion ex officio.

In the case of fraud, where the money is acquired by deceptive act several times against the same victim, if the criminal intent is a single and the method of crime is the same, only a single comprehensive crime of fraud shall be established, and if the single and continuous nature of the crime is not recognized or the method of crime is not the same, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4862 delivered on February 11, 2000, etc.). In this case, where the defendant committed the crime of fraud against D who is the same victim, the court below held that the crime of fraud was committed between 12 and 84 as stated in the judgment below, while recognizing the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for the crime of Nos. 12 through 84 as stated in the judgment below.

However, the record reveals the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant used money in the form of a bond business operator's loan to the H market in return for the use of the money in the form of a number of days; (b) the Defendant was unable to repay it; and (c) the Defendant did not have motive or purpose to commit any other crime since 2006; (b) the Defendant had repeatedly engaged in cash transactions with the victim for a long time while repeating loan and repayment; and (c) the Defendant borrowed money from the victim with a fluoring fluoring fluoring fluoring fluoring fluoring with the Defendant, etc.; and (d) the content of the Defendant's deception by the Defendant’s use of money is similar to all the content of the Defendant's deception

4. In full view of the fact that 21. also short, in the instant case, the uniformity and continuity of the criminal intent, and the identity of the method of committing the crime can be recognized.

Therefore, each of the above crimes is an inclusive crime.