The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant paid the above victim 32.6 million won before the victim E files a complaint for the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the criminal act of the same type of law, he/she repeatedly commits the criminal act of fraud of this case under the name of mechanical proceeds during the suspended sentence period; the victim C and E damage amount due to the criminal act of this case exceeds a total of 200 million won; however, the damage of the above victims still seems to have not yet been properly recovered; and all other sentencing conditions in the arguments of this case including the defendant's age, character, character, environment and family relationship, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

[Defendant is sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud and two years of suspended execution on August 4, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 22, 2014 (hereinafter “the first final and conclusive judgment”).

(A) On October 1, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 19, 2016, upon being sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud (hereinafter “the second final and conclusive judgment”).

Since the instant crime is a crime committed after the final judgment became final and conclusive, it does not constitute a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of the first final and conclusive judgment, and the crime of the second final and conclusive judgment was committed before the date of the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, it was not possible to simultaneously render a judgment on the instant crime and the crime of the second final and conclusive judgment, and thus, the instant crime and the crime of the second final and conclusive judgment do not constitute concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37

Therefore, the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act cannot be applied to the crime of this case.