The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable as the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

In the case where the property is acquired through deception from the same victim several times, if the method of deception is different and the unity and continuity of the crime are not recognized, the substantial concurrent crimes of several crimes are established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1309 Decided November 28, 1989 and Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1751 Decided June 25, 2004, etc.). With respect to this case, the health care unit and the Defendant, around January 19, 2012, shall acquire money from the victim by stating, “it is necessary to re-informate the authorization necessary to operate the cafeteria, and to start two-related franchises business,” and shall obtain money from the victim on February 20, 2012, which is after the end of the month, to pay KRW 80,000,000,000 to the victim for every month, and shall receive money from the victim on February 20, 2012, since it is not possible to recognize the existence of a single criminal offense and a single criminal offense, in light of the time, method of deception, etc. of each crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which omitted aggravated punishment on the ground that the defendant's act constitutes a single crime, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to concurrent crimes, which affected the conclusion of judgment

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds that the court below made an ex officio reversal as seen above, and further decided as follows.

[Discied Reasons for the Judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1...