The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Crimes listed in the summary of the grounds for appeal, which were prosecuted after the statute of limitations has expired, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced (legal scenarios). The Defendant did not have received from the victim the amount of KRW 17 million, which was sentenced to imprisonment (in fact, 10 months) by the lower court against the Defendant. It is too unreasonable that the sentence of imprisonment (in fact, 10 months) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(2) In a case where a person deceptions the other party by a single criminal intent to determine the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles and, as a result, by the same person who is involved in the mistake, by the same method for a certain period of time, it is possible to comprehensively observe it and treat it as a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1751, Jun. 25, 2004). The statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime shall run from the time when the last criminal act ends.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4234 delivered on November 9, 2006). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the crime of this case is a fraudulent act committed several times against the same victim, and it can be recognized that the criminal intent is a single and identical method of crime. This constitutes a single crime of fraud in general.

The ten-year statute of limitations period for the above fraud takes place from December 3, 2008, which is the last day of the crime, and it is clear in the record that the prosecutor's filing of the prosecution was October 25, 2012, which is before the expiration of the ten-year period. Thus, in this case, the statute of limitations for the above fraud has not expired.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no fact that the Defendant borrowed 17 million won as set forth in the [Attachment 3] Nos. 3 from the victim, the lower court determined the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence and the evidence of the lower court.