The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not borrow from the victim the sum of KRW 184 million, among KRW 50 million, KRW 50 million, KRW 40,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 50,000, No. 50, KRW 50,000, KRW 6, No. 14, No. 8, KRW 30,000, KRW 80, KRW 30,000, KRW 9, No. 50,000, KRW 384,000,000, KRW 30,000,000, KRW 9, No. 50,000 in the crime list in the judgment of the court below. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

In the case of fraud, if the money is acquired by deception through several times for the same victim, only a single crime of fraud shall be established if the criminal intent is a single and the method of crime is the same.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4538 delivered on March 10, 2005, 2005; 2005Do8645 delivered on February 23, 2006, etc.). The facts charged in the instant case are somewhat different from the name of lending money, inasmuch as the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay, he/she, by deceiving the victim at least nine times during a period of less than one year, received money from the victim for a period of less than one year, as he/she was unaware of the victim.

In light of the above, the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed by the same criminal act under the single criminal intent against the same victim, and thus, constitutes a single comprehensive crime.

Nevertheless, the court below, however, deemed the crime of this case as a separate crime and committed an illegality that has been treated as concurrent crimes, and such illegality has influenced the judgment, so the judgment of the court below may be maintained further in this regard.