Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. In addition to the circumstances that the court below explained in detail, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant merely affixed a seal and delivered a seal on the notice of pledge establishment with the need for a loan, and failed to notify the victim of the fact that the right of pledge was established for KRW 36 million out of the lease deposit.

In the loan transaction agreement that is made by the Defendant of a foreign bank, it does not include the fact that a pledge is established on the claim of the lease deposit of this case (the investigation record 29-31 pages), and the overall content, such as the receiver, lease contract, and establishment amount of a pledge, except the part on the Defendant’s seal of the notification of establishment of pledge rights, appears to have been recorded by any other person (the investigation record 37,38 pages), and the victim who has a direct interest in the right of pledge, stated to the effect that “the defendant is free from contact only by the time when the director was a director” from the bank staff, and that the victim was stated to the effect that “the defendant was free from contact until the time when the director was a director (the investigation record 16,102 pages) was not properly understood as the content or legal effect of the pledge at the time, and ② the defendant was concluded or terminated the lease contract through real estate and returned the deposit directly with the victim.