All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the facts and misapprehension of legal principles, each fraud listed in the No. 1 and No. 3 of the indictments in this case, among the facts charged, was committed several times against the same victim, and the criminal intent is single, and the method of the crime is the same, and thus the crime is a single comprehensive crime. However, the judgment of the court below which judged each of the above crimes as concurrent crimes, and rendered a judgment of acquittal on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations as to the fraud listed in the No. 1 of the crime list, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) was too unreasonable, while the Defendant asserts that the sentence was too unfilled and unfair. However, the prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s sentence was too unfilled and thus unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. On May 17, 2007, the summary of the public prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is as follows: (a) the Defendant in the summary of the public prosecutor’s office was in the absence of a place on May 17, 2007, with phone call from the victim C, who is the motive of the Defendant’s university, and served as the team leader of the investment company’s “D”, and there is a good investment product; (b) the Defendant would be able to obtain

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, at the time of fact, the defendant did not work as the team leader of the investment company, and even if he did not have any occupation and received the investment money from the injured party, he did not have the intent and ability to pay the investment money due to stock investment and living expenses.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 11 million from the victim to the passbook (Account Number E) of the Defendant, under the pretext of investment money from the victim, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

2) The lower court’s judgment determined as follows: (a) the developments leading up to the Defendant’s transfer of the victim C around May 17, 2007 to the Defendant, which was recognized by the record, are higher than the CMA account.