The guilty portion of the judgment below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below on the erroneous determination of facts, as to the part of the judgment of the court below on acquittal of facts, 3 million won as well as other money in this part of the facts charged, the victim was given a false statement to the defendant that the victim continued from May 2012, 201 that "the victim would have sexual intercourse with E" and the defendant was planned as part of the crime to acquire money continuously with the victim. Thus, even if the defendant spent 3 million won from the money received from the victim in this process, this circumstance alone cannot be denied, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, in light of the fact that it cannot be denied the criminal intent of defraudation. 2) The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, each crime of fraud in the judgment of the court below is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the prosecutor brought a public prosecution for the whole of the facts charged in this case as a single comprehensive crime.

However, in the case of fraud, if the criminal intent is single and the method of fraud is the same, it shall be deemed that only the comprehensive crime of fraud is established if the criminal intent is the same, but if the criminal's identity and continuity are not recognized or the method of crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do508, Jun. 27, 1997). In light of the attached list of the judgment of the court below, in the case of crimes Nos. 2, 4 and 1, 3 and the contents of deception are completely different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2, 70, 71 of the trial record).