The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the defendant only tried to handle the case normally upon the request of the victim C and there was no deception by the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant appealed on April 29, 2016, after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for special injury at the Seoul Central District Court, but the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on November 3, 2016 at the Seoul Central District Court. Although the defendant was above, the defendant was ordered to dismiss the appeal on January 17, 2017, but the decision was issued by the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal on January 19, 2017 and confirmed on January 19, 2017. Thus, the above special injury crime against the defendant, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below, is a concurrent crime under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a punishment on the crime of fraud in consideration of equity with the case where it is judged at the same time pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act.

However, even if there are reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the defendant’s assertion is rejected, since the defendant deceivings the victim.

① In light of the spirit of the substantial direct trial principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as one of the elements of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness is clearly made.