The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eleven months.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. In the case of ex officio judgment fraud, if the money is acquired by deception over several occasions with the same victim, the crime is single, and if the method of crime is the same, only one comprehensive crime of fraud shall be established. However, if the identity and continuity of the crime are not recognized or the method of crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do508 delivered on June 27, 1997, etc.). The defendant acquired 13 times a total of 13 weeks against victim D by the same method. If there are such circumstances, the defendant shall be deemed to be only a comprehensive 1 crime of fraud against the defendant. However, the court below held that each act of receiving the money by deceit constitutes a crime of fraud and that each act of receiving each crime constitutes a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, considering that each act of receiving the money by deceit has a substantive concurrent crime, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes of fraud, which affected the judgment.

The judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained at this point.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following new decision is made through pleading.

[Judgment of the court below] The summary of criminal facts and evidence admitted by a party member of the summary of criminal facts and evidence is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 3

Application of Statutes

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the selection of punishment (a comprehensive penalty) consumed a large amount of fraud by the defendant as an investment in stocks, and as such, the defendant's liability is grave since the damage has not been recovered up to the present. However, the defendant is not guilty.