All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below of first instance by prosecutor is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relation of blanket crime.

B. The punishment of Defendant 2 (2 million won) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the crime of habitual fraud (with respect to the judgment of the court below of the first instance) committed over the period before and after the final judgment of a simple fraud, the crime is not divided into two crimes, and it is completed at the time of the final criminal act which is the final judgment after the final judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1939, Jul. 8, 2010). Therefore, it is justifiable for the court below to acquitted the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the facts charged in the instant case (the crime committed on March 10, 2010) and habitual fraud (the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Da4063, Feb. 27, 2013; the dismissal of the final judgment becomes final on June 13, 2013) are all the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, they constitute a single comprehensive crime under the influence of the same fraud wall.

Even if the defendant was convicted of a simple fraud on October 14, 2010, which was before the final judgment of the above habitual fraud crime, such as the prosecutor's assertion, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 14, 2010, Gwangju District Court 2010 High Court 1885, the above comprehensive crime relation of habitual fraud, which was recognized earlier, is not separated before and after the final judgment of the above simple fraud crime due to the final judgment of the above simple fraud crime (Gwanju District Court 2010 High Court 185), but it is not separated before and after the final judgment of the above simple fraud crime, but it is completed at the time of the final

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing (as to the second judgment of the court below), the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the Defendant’s wrong, and agreed both with the victims, on the other hand, the Defendant has a number of identical criminal records, and the Defendant commits habitual fraud on February 27, 2013.