The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles [Judgment of the court below as to the innocent part of the judgment of the court below] In the case of fraud that is a deception of property, if there is a provision of property by deception, it constitutes a crime of fraud by infringing the victim's property itself, and even if there was a considerable price or there was no damage to the victim's entire property, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud. Therefore, even if the price has been partially paid in the crime of fraud, the fraud amount is not the difference between the value of the property given by the damaged person and the value of the property

That is, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5774, Oct. 28, 2005). In accordance with the above legal principles, if the defendant paid 20,000,000 won to the victim company as part of the price of goods on February 4, 2015, the defendant paid 20,000 won to the victim company.

Even if this is obtained through fraud, it shall not be excluded from the amount of fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of innocence as to this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of fraud, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in the period of eight months of imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the records of this case revealed that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Incheon District Court on April 12, 2018, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 20, 2018. As such, the crime of this case and the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive as above are in the concurrent crime relationship with the crime of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking into account equity in the case where the judgment is concurrently rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and after examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence, the lower court, which did not take into account, became unable to maintain any further.

However, as above.