The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and three months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim G, S, and W.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the 2014 Highest 3788 case, the Defendant started the money exchange business with D, etc., but withdraws from the money exchange business around July 2006, the Defendant did not relate to the crime of fraud against the victims of the instant case.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the part on the fraud against the victim G, S, and W in the 2014 Highest 3788 case.

The termination date of the crime of fraud against each of the above victims is October 13, 2006 (victim G), and October 20, 2006 (victim S, W), and Article 249 (1) 3 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730, Dec. 21, 2007). The statute of limitations for each of the above crimes is seven years.

According to Article 253(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the statute of limitations for prosecution against one accomplice is suspended, and the statute of limitations for prosecution against the other accomplices is ineffective against the other accomplices, and the judgment in the case becomes final and conclusive. As such, the statute of limitations for each of the criminal charges against the above victims against the defendant tortfeasors was suspended on September 27, 2007, and the proceedings were resumed from December 6, 2007, and the judgment became final and conclusive, and the proceedings were suspended on Oct. 7, 2008, and the judgment was concluded again on Oct. 27, 2009, which became final and conclusive on Oct. 7, 2008. However, even if the statute of limitations has been suspended, the statute of limitations for the criminal charge against the victim G was calculated on Oct. 9, 2014; and each of the charges was completed on Oct. 16, 2014.

Therefore, each of the facts charged should have been sentenced to acquittal pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the judgment of the court below is just that the statute of limitations has expired, and each of these parts is included.