The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for three years) declared by the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the fact that there is a large number of times for the Defendants to commit the instant crime, the Defendants used repeatedly the planned and sealed criminal method, and the Defendants committed the instant crime by repeatedly based on the same motive, even though the Defendants did not have any criminal record of fraud, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendants of the grounds for not recognizing habitualness is erroneous, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and misapprehending legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of all the circumstances, such as the method and frequency of the instant crime, motive, and means, etc., the lower court determined that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was a habit of repeatedly committing the instant crime to the Defendants at the time of the instant crime, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Habitualness in habitual fraud refers to the nature of the actor as a habit of repeated fraud. In determining the existence of such habition, the criminal records of the fraud are important data to determine the existence of such habition. However, even if there is no criminal records of fraud, if the habition of the fraud is acknowledged in light of all the circumstances, such as the frequency, means, methods, and motive of the crime, the habitual nature should be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2860 Decided September 8, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5075 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the number of co-principals by the Defendants reaches about 117 times for about 3 years and 5 months, and Defendant B’s number of single criminals is about 4 years.