Defendant

A and prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment is heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendants’ crime of fraud No. 9 in the annexed crime list No. 1 in the judgment of the court below by mistake of facts can be fully found guilty due to Defendant B’s confession in court.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

2) misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendants’ crime of fraud Nos. 1 through 7 of the crime list Nos. 1 through 8 of the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment by misapprehending the legal principles is a single crime and a single crime method is the same.

The lower court assessed the criminal as substantive concurrent crimes on the grounds that the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized, and sentenced to acquittal in regard to the crime of fraud Nos. 1 through 7 of the list of crimes in the annexed crime, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3) The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is somewhat weak.

2. Determination

A. Examining the records in light of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake in the facts, a thorough examination of the records reveals that the court below, on the grounds as seen above, rejected the Defendants’ confessions to the prosecution and the credibility of Defendant B’s confessions in the court below’s judgment, and the remainder of the evidence alone acquired KRW 10,000,000 as the circumstances in which

It is difficult to recognize

The decision is justified and acceptable.

The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is not erroneous.

B. We examine the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine in light of the record.

The crime of fraud Nos. 1 through 7 of the crime list in the judgment of the court below and the crime of fraud Nos. 8 and 8 of the annexed crime list in the judgment of the court below are different by itself from the crime, and the place of crime

It is inevitable to evaluate that the victim is the same, but it is difficult to evaluate that the victim is based on a single and continuous criminal intent.

The court below held that the crime No. 1 or No. 7 of the crime table No. 7 in the judgment of the court below and the crime of fraud No. 8 is a substantive concurrent crime.