The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by both parties of the judgment ex officio.

A. In the case of fraud, if the money is acquired by deceptive act several times for the same victim, and the method of the crime is the same, only the comprehensive crime of fraud shall be established if the criminal intent is a single and the method of the crime is the same. However, if the unity and continuity of the criminal's intent are not recognized or the method of the crime is not identical, each crime shall be deemed as a substantive concurrent crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do508 delivered on June 27, 1997, etc.). B.

Attached Form

On the contrary, the crime of fraud listed in the list of crimes (1) is committed by deceiving the victim and deceiving the property, and the crime of fraud listed in the list of crimes listed in the attached Table (2) is committed by deceiving the victim and taking the credit card by using it, and the objects of the crime of fraud are different, and the method of deception is different.

Since all of them can not be regarded as a single comprehensive crime, it is reasonable to view that a separate crime is established, and that there exists a substantive concurrent relationship among them.

Nevertheless, the court below held that all of the above fraud crimes committed by the defendant were an inclusive crime, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of fraud crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The defendant on February 10, 201.