The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of the legal doctrine did not mislead the victim of the credit standing of the defendant, and the defendant did not mislead the victim of the intent to repay and the source of the borrowed money. Thus, the defendant did not mislead the victim to place the victim into mistake.

B. Judgment of the court below which rendered an unfair sentencing: 4 million won.

2. In the case of ex officio determination of fraud, where the money is acquired through deception several times for the same victim, the crime is a single crime and if the method of crime is the same, only a single crime is established. However, where the identity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do1309, Nov. 28, 1989; 97Do508, Jun. 27, 1997). It is a substantive concurrent relationship between the defendant and the victim four times from February 13, 2012 to April 13, 2018.

Although it is reasonable to see that each of the above frauds is a single comprehensive crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below

3. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant was free from the time the Defendant first borrowed money from the injured party as the basic recipient, and ii) the Defendant did not have any particular ability to repay or repayment plan at the time of borrowing money from the injured party. The method