The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a crime set forth in the judgment of the Highest 538 case, 2018, 391.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the lower judgment was no longer maintained in the following respect.

A. The lower court determined that the crime Nos. 1 and 2 of the 2018 Highest 538 Case was a single comprehensive crime on the ground that the victim is the same, the criminal intent is single, and the method of crime is the same.

2) However, it is possible to comprehensively observe the crime and treat the money by the same method from the same person who is deceiving the other party through a single exercise of a single crime, and as a result, in a case where the identity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of committing the crime is not identical, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1751, Jun. 25, 2004). For example, when the criminal defendant acquires money three times from the same victim, the interval of time is more than two months each, and even in the method of deception, he/she intends to dispose of the object of the auction if he/she prepares a security deposit for auction and takes part in the method of deception.

A false statement was made, and the second is a disposition of the above real estate only once more time.

to lend money to another person, and if the money is not lent to another person at the last time, the money that has been lent to another person cannot be repaid.

If the victim was placed in a situation where it is inevitable to lend the money to the victim by making a false statement, there was the unity and continuity of the criminal intent of the defendant.

As such, each of the above crimes constitutes concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do1309 delivered on November 28, 1989). 3) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court is examined as follows.