The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The victim’s statement that conforms to this part of the facts charged is not reliable, and the Defendant has continuously repaid considerable parts of the price of cosmetics, loan money, etc. purchased from the injured party as well as the account transfer and card settlement method. As such, Defendant 1 had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation by the defrauded.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Code provide that the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted in a case where a person who commits an offense without a complaint surrenderss himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive.

However, on December 22, 2016, the Defendant led to the confession of the instant accusation on the third trial date at the trial date, and the case against F with respect to which the Defendant was the deceased is obvious that he/she was subject to a non-prosecution disposition and the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the statutory penalty against the Defendant for the instant non-prosecution ought to be reduced or exempted in accordance with Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, without mitigation or exemption from statutory punishment for the crime of false accusation of this case, the judgment of the court below which sentenced one punishment for the crime of this case and the crime of fraud in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be maintained as it is.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the argument of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the defendant's fraud is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. The point of fraud