The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) is not recognized as the uniformity and continuity of the criminal intent among the crimes listed in the No. 5 of the crime list, such as the crimes listed in the No. 1 or No. 4 of the judgment of the court below, but the method of crime is not the same, and thus cannot be deemed

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations for the crimes listed in the table Nos. 1 through 7 of the same crime was not expired on the ground that the crime in the table Nos. 1 through 4 of the same crime was an inclusive crime due to the misunderstanding of facts as to the continuity of the crime's single sex and the misapprehension of legal principles as to

Even if not, the sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

On the basis of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the crime listed in No. 1 through No. 7 of the judgment of the lower court was an inclusive crime for which the unity and continuity of the criminal's intent is recognized.

In full view of the circumstances revealed by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the lower court’s judgment that deemed the crime to be a single and continuous comprehensive crime for which the unity and continuity of the above crime are recognized is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the statute of limitations cannot be deemed to have expired by deeming only the crimes listed in Nos. 1 through 4 of the

1. The core of the said act of deception was to pay money from the victim with personal debt repayment, time limit deposit, etc. even if the victim borrowed money, and to notify the victim of the purpose different from the actual one, although the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the money.