The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crimes provided for in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the judgment of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one month and paragraph (5) of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Prosecutor: The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) shall be too unhued and unreasonable;

B. Defendant: The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the ex officio determination and the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.

A. Legal principles concerning the number of crimes of frauds 1) In the case of frauds, where the money is acquired by deceptive act several times against the same victim, if the criminal intent is single and the method of crime is the same, only a comprehensive one crime of fraud is established. However, in the case where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of crime is not the same, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do508, Jun. 27, 1997; 2007Do3497, Jul. 12, 2007). According to the records, each crime of frauds 1 through 7 of the judgment of the court below is deemed to be one of the concurrent crimes. Although each victim is the same, it is not recognized that the unity and continuity of the criminal intent is not recognized for each of the victims, or the method or fraud is different, and thus, it is in a relationship of substantive concurrent crimes.

Nevertheless, since the court below imposed a sentence within the scope of punishment which did not increase concurrent crimes, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes in fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Contributory legal principles concerning concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act) Any crime for which a judgment with prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and any crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, with respect to any crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the relevant crime and the final judgment are concurrently adjudicated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). In addition, even where there are multiple crimes for which judgment with prison labor or heavier punishment