All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Fraud against several victims of misapprehension of legal principles is established not only by a single crime but also by a victim, even if the criminal intent is single and the method of committing the crime is the same. The Defendant A’s fraud crime is a concurrent crime under the Criminal Act, and it cannot be subject to the “Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes,” which regulates the case where the amount of damage from fraud exceeds 500 million won. 2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

C. Each sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a person who habitually committed multiple crimes on Defendant A’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine repeatedly commits several crimes, it is not to regard each crime as a separate crime and be punished as a single crime that covers all of the crimes, but to be punished as a single crime that is a habitual offender in line with the nature of the crime or the legislative intent of the provision on the aggravated punishment of the habitual

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do769, Apr. 14, 201). In light of the following: (a) Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”)’s criminal act; (b) the number and frequency of victims and the number of crimes; (c) the period of crime; and (d) the fact that the instant fraud crime was planned and systematically repeated, as indicated in the lower judgment, it is clear that the lower court recognized the Defendant’s commission of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do769, Apr. 14, 201). Therefore, considering the facts charged in the lower judgment and the application of the statutes thereof, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s commission of fraud: Provided, That this is omitted in the summary of