The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for four months, respectively.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each punishment (two and half years of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, and six months of imprisonment) declared by the court below to the Defendants is unfair due to excessive fault (Defendant B and his defense counsel explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts on the first trial date). 2. Ex officio decision

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants omitted concurrent crimes, in the case of acquiring each property by deceptive act against several victims in fraud, the crime is established not by a single crime, but by a single crime, even if the criminal intent is identical and the method of the crime is identical, and if the money is acquired by deceptive act several times against the same victim, only one crime is established by a single criminal intent and the method of the crime is identical. However, if the single and continuous criminal intent is not recognized or the method of the crime is not identical, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do508, Jun. 27, 1997). Since each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendants is different from the victim or the single and continuous criminal intent of the same victim is not recognized, and thus, there is a concurrent crime relation under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, the court below erred in omitting the aggravation of concurrent crimes among the provisions of the applicable law, so the judgment of the court below is no longer able to be maintained.

B. The amendment of the indictment against Defendant B was made in the first instance trial by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the purport that “Defendant B was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment on April 6, 2016 due to the violation of the Act on the Prevention of Fraud in Telecommunications Finance and the Refund of Damage Money, etc. at the Suwon Friwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 17, 2016,” thereby permitting the party member to amend the indictment. Accordingly, the party member’s Defendant is the party member.