The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A crime of fraud against the defendant on February 1, 2013, and a crime of fraud against a police officer on April 2013.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. in its holding, although the Defendant did not sell phiphones to H, erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the Defendant’s mistake of facts and unfair assertion of sentencing, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on September 11, 2013 with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) in the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch branch branch branch, and on February 21, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 2014.

Therefore, the Defendant’s crime of fraud against L on February 1, 2013, and the crime of fraud and habitual gambling against L on April 2013, 2013, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) against L on which the said judgment became final and conclusive, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc.) committed against L on April 2013, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes. Therefore, the lower court should have imposed a separate sentence on the crime of fraud against J on June 2, 2016, and the crime of violation of the Act (a violation of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc.) committed against P on August 7, 2016 after the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the above facts and all of the above facts of the crime are concurrent crimes.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more because there is an error of law that sentenced a single punishment.

3. In conclusion, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's mistake of facts and the unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment] Summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence