The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not deceiving F and G at the time of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and had the intention or ability to normally proceed with the construction of a factory, but the victim did not reach a new construction by refusing to approve the use of land. Therefore, there was no intention to obtain fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, a crime of fraud is established by each victim, in principle, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio judgment. Where there are several victims, even if the victims have a single criminal intent and the method of crime are identical, the legal interests of each victim are independent, and thus, multiple crimes of frauds are established by each victim. This is

While considering the victim of the instant crime as F, G, and H Co., Ltd. as three, the lower court determined that each of the instant fraud against the victims was established. Although G is the representative director of H Co., Ltd., F and G are married with the Plaintiff, and even if F is the actual operator of the said company, each of the fraudulent acts against the victims cannot be deemed as a single crime, solely for these circumstances, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim’s legal interests are the same, each of the above fraudulent acts against the victims of the Defendant should be applied to the victim as a substantive concurrent crime.

Meanwhile, although F is not a representative director of H Co., Ltd. in form, but can be deemed as having a dispositive position at the same time as the defrauded in the course of a series of fraud by the Defendant as the actual operator, the obligee who had executed a provisional seizure on the instant land but cancelled the provisional seizure is H Co., Ltd., and thereafter, the Defendant obtained a loan from the community credit cooperatives, while having completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 1/2 portion