The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant had been staying in Korea around December 14, 2017, there was no fact that he committed fraud against the victim CL.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, this paper will examine the reasons for appeal.

A. First, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of an indictment with respect to the part of the lower judgment regarding the fraud of the Victim CL to “ around November 14, 2017: (a) around 13:03” and “ around December 14, 2017: (b) the date and time of the crime was changed to “ around December 13:03, 201; and (c) the subject of the judgment was changed by this Court’s permission.

B. Next, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of facts constituting the crime regarding the joining and activities of a criminal organization as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment, and found the above crime and each crime of fraud as stated in the judgment of the lower court constituted substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and determined the punishment for the Defendant within the scope of

However, the facts constituting the crime of joining and running activities of a criminal organization in the holding of the court below are an inclusive crime that the defendant joined and joined a single criminal organization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do7081, Sept. 10, 2015). The facts constituting each fraud in the holding of the court below indicate the act that constitutes the elements of fraud among the contents of activities as a member of the criminal organization and include the latter. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that a single act constitutes a commercial concurrent relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act that constitutes several crimes.

Each crime of fraud in the judgment of the court below is in the relation of substantive concurrence, but each of the above crimes is in the relation of common concurrence between the joining of a criminal organization and the crime of activity.