The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) An advance payment of three months old-North Korea payment at the time of subscription by the subscribers to the service through mistake of facts and a dubro shall be deducted from the amount obtained by deceit of the crime of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment without deducting such money.

B. On September 30, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 7 million (hereinafter “instant summary order”) due to a violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users in Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da24533, Sept. 30, 201. The instant summary order became final and conclusive as it is.

Since the facts constituting the offense of this case and part of the facts charged of this case are the blanket crimes or ordinary concurrent crimes, the judgment of acquittal should be rendered on the part of the facts charged of this case where the res judicata effect of the summary order of this case among the facts charged of this case.

C. The sentence of imprisonment (the first crime in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the second crime in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for nine months) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in a case of fraud the content of which is the taking-off of property, there is an infringement on the victim’s property by deception itself, thereby constituting a crime of fraud, and even if considerable consideration has been paid or no damage has occurred to the whole property of the victim, the establishment of the crime of fraud does not affect the conclusion of the crime of fraud. Therefore, even in a case where part of the payment was made in a crime of fraud, the amount of the taking-off should be deemed to be the whole property received, not the difference between the value of the property given by the victim and the value of the property given by the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1899, Jul. 7, 200). 2