The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is as follows: “The defendant, by deceiving the victim D to lend money to the victim D to reduce the subcontract for the reconstruction project of the Seoul apartment located in Daegu-gu, and by deceiving the victim, 6 million won around November 8, 2008, 3 million won around May 7, 2009, and 7.5 million won around August 15, 2009, respectively.” The criminal facts of habitual fraud against the defendant for whom the judgment became final and conclusive are as follows: “The defendant, as of September 16, 2005, by deceiving the victim from the victim G with the need to pay money, and by deceiving him/her to lend money to him/her for the period from September 16, 2005 to December 30, 2007, he/she acquired the total amount of money of KRW 98 billion over 11 billion over a total period from September 16, 2005 to December 30, 2007.”

Therefore, the above habitual fraud crime and the facts charged in this case, which became final and conclusive, are different from the content of deception, and the victim is different from each other, and there are about one year interval, and there are circumstances that could not be prosecuted at the same time, so a single comprehensive crime relationship is established.

Although it is difficult to see that the facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged in the instant habitual fraud, the lower court is in the comprehensive crime of habitual fraud.

In light of the above, the court below rendered a judgment of acquittal against the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment of acquittal.

2. In habitual fraud, habitual fraud refers to the nature of the actor as a habit of repeated fraud. The habition of the fraud referred to in this context does not mean only the habition of the fraud by the same method, insofar as it is recognized as the creation of the habition by the actor, but also includes the habition of the fraud, which covers the fraud by the several methods (Supreme Court Decision 9Do4797 delivered on February 11, 2000). In a case where a person who habitually commits multiple offenses repeatedly, each crime should be considered as a separate crime, and all of them should be punished as concurrent crimes.