Of the lower judgment (excluding the part dismissing an application for compensation), the part concerning the crime of Article 2017 Highest 2407 and 2019 Highest 1558 (1) of the Decision is committed.

1. The lower court rejected the application for compensation order B by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the part dismissing the application for compensation order was immediately finalized.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the rejection of the above compensation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The part on fraud against the victim B of the misapprehension of legal doctrine (the crime of 2017 order 2407 order 2017 order 2407 order 2017 order 2017 order 513 order 2017 order 2017 order 2017 order 2017 order 513 order 2010 order 2010 order 20100 order 207 order 2000 order 202000 order 202000 order 2000) order 2000 order 2020

B. Each sentence of the lower court by the Prosecutor is too uneasible.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

If an individual crime, which is a single comprehensive crime, is committed over the period before and after a final judgment of a different kind, that crime is not divided into two crimes, but completed at the final crime which is a final judgment after the final judgment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3312, Aug. 21, 2001; 2002Do5341, Aug. 22, 2003). When the original adjudication, the crime of fraud (Article 1-B) in the name of entertainment expense for the victim F (Article 2019Da1558, Oct. 22, 201; 201Do3341, Oct. 22, 2003) is a single crime of fraud by deceiving the same victim as a single criminal intent and by deceiving the same victim as a single criminal intent.

Therefore, as of March 7, 2016, which was the final crime time, the crime after the final judgment was rendered on October 7, 2014 (hereinafter “final judgment”), and thus, a single sentence should be imposed by combining the above criminal facts.