The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the defendants' grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the case where a single criminal intent is a single crime, and the other party is accused of the property through a mistake, thereby deceiving the other party through the same method, the entire property shall be deemed a single crime. However, in the case where a criminal intent is a single crime and the method of crime is the same, each victim's damage legal interest is independent even if the crime is committed with a single criminal intent, so the entire crime is not a single crime, and multiple crimes of frauds are established independently for each victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do582, Jun. 13, 1989; 2003Do382, Apr. 8, 2003). Such fraud is a substantive concurrent crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2810, Apr. 29, 2010). The Defendants, in collusion with I, by deceiving victims and disposing of mobile phones opened in the name of each victims, by deceiving them, thereby taking the total amount of approximately KRW 43 million from 23 victims, constitutes multiple types of frauds independent for each victim, and thus the judgment of the court below should be based on substantive concurrent crimes. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by punishing them as a single comprehensive crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall be reversed in its entirety.

B. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act for concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, where a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and the relationship of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be established,

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948 Decided October 27, 2011 and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do948 Decided September 27, 2012