The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the lower court (in respect of each of the crimes listed in the table Nos. 1 to 67 of the crime committed in the annexed table of the judgment of the lower court, 10 months of imprisonment and 68 to 86 of imprisonment for each of the crimes listed in the same table of sight) is too unreasonable.

2. To examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, and to take money by deception several times against the same victim in fraud, if the criminal intent is single and if the method of crime is the same, only a single comprehensive crime in fraud shall be established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do8251, Apr. 28, 2004; 2010Do8858, Oct. 14, 2010). The crime of fraud of this case is committed by the Defendant, although the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, he/she does not have the intent or ability to repay the money, and the seizure of the head of the Tong, 2.2 billion won, was immediately released, and he/she borrowed money with the money.

The defendant will pay money with business profits to be acquired, security loans through real estate held, insurance proceeds scheduled to receive.

“False statement to the effect that it is “,” and it was received from the victim the total sum of KRW 111,508,550 from March 6, 2015 to October 13, 2018, which is equivalent to the total amount of KRW 111,508,550 from the victim, and this shall be considered as acquiring money by the same method to the same victim on the face of a single criminal intent, but it shall be deemed as having received property through several occasions due to the fraud.

Therefore, the crime of fraud in this case is deemed to be one comprehensive crime.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the crime of fraud in this case was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal.