The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below (one year and four months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime is inevitable in that the Defendant deceivings the victim as if the Defendant could have sold mark points on a lot, thereby deceiving the victim with the nominal money such as rebates and entertainment expenses, and in that it was not fully restored to the extent of damage, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant.

The defendant recognized and reflected his criminal act, and agreed with the victim by paying 10 million won to the victim in the investigation stage and 21 million won in the trial of the party.

In addition, in full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, and circumstances before and after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable.

3. As the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is again decided as follows.

【Grounds for a new judgment】 The facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence, and the gist of evidence are identical to the facts in each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

Application of Statutes

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Although Article 37 of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of previous convictions in the judgment against the defendant after the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is a single concurrent crime with the crime of this case, Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act does not apply to the crime of this case, since it constitutes a case where one sentence cannot be pronounced upon judgment with the crime of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do2351, Jun. 10, 201, etc.).