The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the part concerning fraud as stated in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged was completed seven years after the time of the crime, and thus, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of fraud as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, where the money was acquired by deceptive act several times against the same victim, if the criminal intent is single and the method of crime is identical, only a single comprehensive crime of fraud is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5598, Jan. 28, 2005). The statute of limitations for a single single crime is run from the time when the last criminal act has been committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002). In this case, the crime of this case is a single crime since the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the victim as if there was a plan to remove and newly construct the “C building” even though there was no plan to do so, the crime of this case is also a single crime, and it constitutes a single crime as a single crime, since it was a method of acquiring 15 million won through a total amount of 3-4 months or more.

Since it is apparent in the record that the instant public prosecution was instituted on October 14, 2014, before the completion of the seven-year statute of limitations from October 29, 2007, when the last criminal act was completed, the Defendant’s assertion in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine premised on the completion of the statute of limitations cannot be accepted.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant deposited KRW 5 million out of the amount of damage when the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing was made in the first instance, and the motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, Defendant’s career, environment, etc., as well as the various conditions of sentencing indicated in the record and pleading, the Defendant.