The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not have any misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles by deceiving the victim B, thereby deceiving 40 million won.

Even if the act of the defendant constitutes fraud, there is only the same crime, and since the crime of this case and the crime by final judgment are one comprehensive crime, the defendant cannot be punished.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the prohibition of double punishment, the principle of no double punishment, the principle of no one-time absence, and the principle of single comprehensive crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, two years of community service order, 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The relevant legal doctrine is established when a person deceptions another person, thereby receiving property or acquiring profits from property, and deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to observe each other in the transactional relationship with property (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do3054, Apr. 24, 1998). In a case where multiple victims acquire property profits by deception, each of them commits a single crime, and even if the method of crime is identical, each victim’s benefit and benefit from property is independent, it cannot be understood as a single crime, and a crime of fraud is established independently for each victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do16980, Apr. 23, 2015). The principle of prohibition of double punishment provided by Article 13(1) of the Constitution is to ensure that the State is not able to exercise the same right of punishment for the same criminal acts as that of the people (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do16980, Apr. 23, 2019).