It is not that there was an excessive obligation to the defendant at the time.

The defendant owned the Seoul Gangnam-gu P building by sharing 1/2 shares with her husband and 1/2, and the value of 1/2 shares is about KRW 450 million.

They also possessed D's art works operated by the defendant.

Although the defendant was liable for 1 billion won as a debtor for the above P building as a security, the part guaranteed by the defendant's husband's share as a security is about 500 million won.

Since the defendant operated D at the same place for 30 years and continued to import art products, it is possible to pay for that revenue.

I think.

On November 2015, the defendant made a deposit of KRW 45 million to the second point of Q works and received a brokerage, and if the sale of KRW 900 million has disappeared, it was expected that the commission of KRW 90 million will be paid to the defendant.

In that sense, around November 2015, the victim did not incur any revenue from the commission because it is difficult to sell one point remaining after selling the victim's client with a good condition of KRW 1,400,000,000. Of the two points of Q works, the victim borrowed KRW 20,000,000 with the defendant's weak mind in the circumstance that the sale of one point remaining due to the sale of part of one point of the two points of the above Q works became difficult. As such, the use of the instant loan is not important at the time, and the Defendant did not say that the loan was the repayment of interest on its bank loans to the victim so that the commercial body dealing with art works does not damage.

On February 29, 2016 between the defendant and the injured party, the RP of KRW 145 million was traded.

The reason for appeal is that “the transaction of Sized Whites of KRW 145 million around February 29, 2015” in four pages of the Reasons for Appeal is a clerical error in “the around February 29, 2016” and “Rized White”.