The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles actually used the money received from the victims for purchasing and printing programs, the Defendant did not obtain money from the victims.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous or erroneous in law.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

According to the records, on November 6, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act at the Busan District Court on November 9, 2013 and completed the execution of the sentence on November 9, 2013. Each of the crimes of this case constitutes a repeated crime since each of the crimes of this case was committed from June 16, 2014 to July 21, 2014, which was within three years after the execution of the sentence was completed.

If so, the court below held that the defendant's punishment was imposed on a repeated offender and that the defendant's punishment was omitted, and thus, it cannot be maintained any more.

[Inasmuch as the facts charged by the Defendant, which are the grounds for repeated offense, do not constitute criminal facts and merely constitute the grounds for sentencing, deliberation and determination may be possible even if they are not indicated in the indictment, and even if the applicable provisions for repeated offense are not indicated in the indictment, the court may ex officio punish the Defendant as a repeated offense by applying them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6147, Jul. 9, 2015): Provided, That notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the argument for misunderstanding of facts by the Defendant is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, is so long as the defendant does not make a confession, the history, environment, contents of the crime, and transactions before and after the crime.