The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the victim’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant borrowed an additional KRW 4 million to establish a breeding shed on October 201, 201,” is highly reliable, and the Defendant committed the crime of continuous fraud against the victim, etc., the fact that the Defendant acquired 4 million won from the victim even after the first police officer on October 201 can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous as a matter of fact.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the court below determined ex officio the facts constituting a single crime which covers each fraud listed in the facts constituting the crime No. 1 through No. 3 as indicated in the judgment, but in light of the fact that the dates and dates of each crime and deceptions are different, each of the above facts constituting a crime is in the relationship of substantive concurrent crimes

I see that it is.

Nevertheless, there is a single crime relation.

Of the judgment below, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the court's ruling despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

B. On October 201, 201, the summary of this part of the facts charged by the public prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant is guilty of the facts charged is not only the principal but also the interest of the victim C in the Sungnam-dong market in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu.

“A false statement,” and it received 4 million won from the injured party as the borrowed money.

2) The lower court’s judgment is based on evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, including the victim’s legal statement in the lower court and the statement in the police. However, the victim’s statement alone is the facts charged.