The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) Of the facts charged in the instant fraud, the part as indicated in the annexed Table Nos. 13 and 14 (the crime committed as of September 26, 2017) among the facts charged in the instant fraud, the Defendant only received money for gambling with the victim at the time, and did not borrow money from the victim by deceiving the victim as in need of the outside money hospital expenses. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of all the facts charged in the instant larceny, including this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) As to each of the facts charged in the instant larceny, the Defendant was holding a credit card with the consent of the ordinary victim B, and thus, did not use the credit card nor did the intent of unlawful acquisition.

In addition, since the prior permission was obtained from B on October 7, 2017 for the use of cash services, it cannot be said that 500,000 won in cash was stolen from the victim's nameless management.

Nevertheless, the court below's conviction of each part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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

In the case of a trial, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to correct the “1,00,000 won” of No. 22 of the annexed list of crimes as “1,00,000 won” and “20,980,000 won” of the combined amount as “20,000 won” in the attached list of crimes, and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court.

Furthermore, the remaining criminal facts of the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the revised facts charged, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As seen thereafter, the court below changed its judgment.