The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In full view of the mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant’s previous convictions, frequency and time interval of crimes, similarity of the contents of crimes, etc., the crime of this case can be deemed to have been caused by Defendant’s deceptions, but the lower court did not recognize the habitualness of the Defendant, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Habitualness in the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is a habit of repeated fraud, and the existence of such habition shall be taken into account not only the previous criminal records of the fraud but also the frequency, means, methods, and motives of the crime in determining the existence of such habition.

(2) In light of the following facts, the Defendant’s crime of this case is acknowledged as having been caused by the habitation of fraud, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the Prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

① From May 22, 1998 to January 9, 2020, the Defendant had four times of serving a notice disposition on payment of penalty under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and nine times of summary trial, with the term “defluence”.

(No. 68, 69, 70, 263, 264, and 265 of the Evidence Records No. 1). In addition, the Defendant was sentenced to a stay of execution on June 14, 1990 to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. in the Jinwon District Court Jinwon District Court Jinwon District Court on March 14, 190, and the records of the same punishment are 9 times or more (in fact, there are several cases of being prosecuted for consolidation or habitually prosecuted for fraud, the number of actual crimes is greater, and the evidence records No. 281-312 of the Evidence Records No. 1).