The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the penalty imposed by the court below (one year imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant used the money paid by the injured party for considerable expenses, etc.; (b) the Defendant did not use the money individually; and (c) the Defendant agreed to do so with the injured party; and (d) the injured party does not want the punishment of the Defendant

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on September 28, 2010 (hereinafter “final judgment”) and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 6, 2010 (hereinafter “final judgment No. 1”); on November 22, 2010, the court sentenced one year of imprisonment for fraud and two years of suspended execution to be sentenced for fraud (hereinafter “final judgment No. 2”); on November 30, 2010, the above judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “final judgment”) on September 26, 2012; on the other hand, on September 26, 2012, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced a punishment of eight months of imprisonment for fraud and two years of suspended execution, which became final and conclusive on October 5 of the same year (hereinafter “third final and conclusive judgment”); on the other hand, the crime of violation of Article 3 of the final and conclusive judgment and the crime of violation of Article 310 of the final judgment constitutes a final and conclusive judgment.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act that sentenced punishment in consideration of the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 3 and equity in relation to the crime of this case committed after the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 and No. 2, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although the Defendant’s act of taking the victim by fraud is a single criminal intent and constitutes a single criminal offense, the lower court deemed each act of taking the victim by defraudation as a separate criminal act, and committed an unlawful act of treating the victim as a concurrent criminal, and such an unlawful act affected the judgment.

(c)

For the above reasons, the judgment of the court below is without merit.