The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower court (an offense of No. 1 through No. 4 in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the lower court: Imprisonment with prison labor for three months and a crime of No. 5 in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the lower court: imprisonment with prison labor for one month) is too unreasonable.

(The Defendant withdrawn his claim regarding the compensation order on the first trial date.)

B. Each sentence of the lower court by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In a case where several acts falling under the same name of crime or continuous acts are continuously conducted for a certain period under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal intent, and the benefit and interest of the said damage are identical, all of these acts shall be punished by a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4051, Sept. 30, 2005). B. It is recognized that the Defendant was detained on Jan. 6, 2012, which was a crime No. 4 of the annexed list of crimes in the judgment of the court below, and committed a crime No. 5 of the annexed list of crimes in the judgment of the court below after being released from office on Nov. 4, 2012.

However, the method of committing the crime No. 5 above and the legal interests and interests of damage are identical to the crime No. 1 through 4 above, and the defendant will purchase the apartment if he pays more than 2 million won by adding up 60 million won that he acquired from the damaged person in the crime No. 5 No. 1 through 4 at the time of the crime No. 5 above. 5.

In light of the fact that the money was acquired through deception, the criminal intent of the defraudation of the defendant was severed or renewed only by the above circumstances.

It is difficult to see that the defendant acquired money from the injured person from November 11, 201 to December 3, 2012 under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal defendant.

(c)

Ultimately, since each of the frauds in this case is related to a single comprehensive crime, the court below has a relation of substantive concurrence.

On January 14, 2012, the decision of 10 months on the defendant's imprisonment was made.