The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the Defendant revoked the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date in the appellate trial.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

A. According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on November 15, 2018 at the Changwon District Court for a crime of intrusion upon a building, etc. on one year and two months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 22, 2019.

Since the crime of the judgment of the court below and the above crime of the court below for which judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where these crimes are concurrently adjudicated pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act,

B. In addition, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, and determined the sentence against the Defendant within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes by deeming that each crime was established by the sequence of crime list, which constitutes a substantive concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, in the case of fraud, if the money is acquired by deception through several times for the same victim, the intention of the crime is a single and the method of crime is the same, only a single comprehensive crime of fraud shall be established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do4569 delivered on May 14, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do338 delivered on September 23, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4538 delivered on March 10, 2005, etc.). The Defendant was provided with alcohol and alcohol from the victim under the presumption that he/she had the ability or intent to pay the price eight times during a month. It is reasonable to deem that not only the interval of time is very close, but also the same victim was made by the same method of crime under the single criminal intent, and thus constitutes a single comprehensive crime.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the judgment.

(c) therefore.