The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the lower court recognized the Defendant’s commencement of the commission of the instant crime as of April 21, 2016, the period when the Defendant participated in the instant crime should have been set as of April 1, 2016 in favor of the Defendant, if the Defendant could not accurately specify the period at the end of April 2016, when he/she left Korea.

In addition, the amount of the defendant's fraud of this case should be specified only as the amount of the fraud of the "G" office, and it shall not be considered as the amount of the fraud of the entire office operated by C.

The defendant from August 23, 2016

9.2. During the period of up to 2.0 days, this part must be excluded from the amount obtained by deceitation by the accused.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted all the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment (the purpose of reducing the period, reducing the number of times, and reducing the total amount of fraud) with the content that the prosecutor obtained a total of KRW 376,571,642 from April 21, 2016 to August 27, 2016 and obtained a total of KRW 376,571,642 from around April 21, 2016, in collusion with the above C, and obtained a total of KRW 3,364 times, as stated in the list of crimes, and obtained a copy of the last sentence of the facts charged in this case from around April 21, 2016 (the change in the list of crimes in the attached Form). Since this court changed the list of crimes subject to the judgment by permitting this,

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined first.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On May 1, 2016, regarding the assertion that the time at which the crime was involved should be seen as May 1, 2016, the defense counsel is the time when the defendant was involved in the crime.