The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not make a false statement to the victim G with regard to each of the crimes in this case among the crimes, and was delegated by G with all the authority to construct a pen in relation to the provision of the design contract. In light of the situation at the time, the Defendant was bound to prepare a design contract.

Nevertheless, the lower court which pronounced the Defendant guilty erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Where several acts falling under the name of the same crime as ex officio judgment or continuous acts are continuously conducted for a certain period under the intention of a single and continuous criminal, and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of such acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime, among all of them; however, where the unity and continuity of the criminal's intention are not recognized or the method of committing such act is not the same, each of such crimes shall be

(See Supreme Court Decisions 89Do1309 delivered on November 28, 1989, 2005Do4051 delivered on September 30, 2005, etc.). In light of the facts charged in this case, the victim and the defendant of the fraud are identical, but the victim of the fraud and the defendant are identical, inasmuch as the contents of each deception, the purpose of use of money, and the contents of related businesses are different, so it cannot be deemed that the unity and continuity of the crime are recognized and the method of crime is identical, each of the money in this case is deemed to have the relation of substantive concurrent crimes.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s decision that determined punishment by deeming that the act of defraudation of each of the instant money was in the relation of a single comprehensive crime is unlawful by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and such mistake was affected by the judgment. Therefore, the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. The case.