The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

seizure.

1. Summary of the prosecutor's appeal reasons: The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment for defendant A, two years and six years of imprisonment for defendant D, three years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a single criminal intent to make an ex officio judgment by deceiving the other party and making a mistake, thereby deceiving the property through the same method, the entire property shall be a single crime. However, in a case where a criminal intent is a single crime and a crime is committed separately against several victims, and each victim's benefit and interest in the damage of each victim is independent even if the method of crime is the same, so the whole crime is not a single crime, and there are several separate crimes of frauds independently for each victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do582, Jun. 13, 1989; 2003Do382, Apr. 8, 2003); and the mutual crime between these crimes of frauds is a substantive concurrent crime.

The Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2810 Decided April 29, 2010 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2810, Apr. 29, 201). The lower court held that Defendant A would sell fishing tools to five victims.

In spite of the fact that the act of deceiving money by deceiving money is separate crimes and the act of deceiving money is treated as a substantive concurrent crimes, it is wrong to treat it as a single crime.

The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant A can no longer be maintained.

B. The sentencing of Defendant D’s wrongful assertion of sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the determination of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance is reasonable within the scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the first instance sentencing trial process.