The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. In light of the overall circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes and reflected, and the fact that the agreement with the victim F is in progress, the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The amount of profit as referred to in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) refers to the sum of the amount of profit or the amount of profit when a single crime is constituted, and it does not mean the sum of each amount of profit which can be punished as concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do28, Mar. 24, 2000). In a case where multiple victims acquire each pecuniary profit by deception with each other, even if the method of the deception is identical, the legal profit of each victim is a single crime and the method of the crime is identical, so it cannot be understood as a single crime, and a crime of fraud is established independently for each victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do743, Jun. 22, 1993). However, in a case where the victims can be deemed identical with the legal interest of a single business entity due to the formation of a single business entity, etc., even if the victims are multiple victims, they can be deemed a single crime of fraud.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do769, Apr. 14, 2011). In a case where each victim obtains pecuniary profits from several victims by means of one deception, several frauds are established for each victim, and the relationship between the two should be deemed to exist.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9330, Jan. 13, 2011). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant deceptioned the victim F with seven delegations from the victim G, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, etc., and " below 11 m2,546m2, such as land located in the wife population N in the victims, the defendant was not more than 11m2,546m2.