A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant had established the right to collateral security on a dredging line was aimed at raising funds necessary for the same business with the victim, but did not have the personal debt security purpose.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts. First, as to whether the dredging vessel of this case constitutes the Defendant and the victim’s property of the same kind, the Defendant and the victim invested KRW 500 million in total in sand sales business around several times in around 2013, and the Defendant and the victim agreed to engage in the business of collecting aggregate using dredging lines around June 2014, where sand sales business was completed, and the Defendant and the victim agreed to engage in the business of collecting aggregate around 200 million won in total at the time of permanent residence of the Defendant and the victim. The Defendant and the victim agreed to engage in the business of collecting aggregate from dredging lines around 2014, where sand sales business was completed. The victim made investments in funds, and the Defendant actually carried out the business.

Accordingly, on December 30, 2014, the defendant purchased the dredging line of this case and put it into the open-dong aggregate extraction site.

On the other hand, sand sales business was terminated on August 2015, and at the time, the victim re-investment in the aggregate extraction business, which decided to operate as a partner, the remaining KRW 450 million, excluding the amount of KRW 200,000,000,000,000, which was already paid to the defendant, out of the total of KRW 70,000,000,000.

The Defendant and the victim stated to the effect that the Defendant and the victim decided to distribute the profits from the aggregate extraction projects to 1:1. ② According to the above statement by the Defendant and the victim, the victim and the victim entered into a partnership agreement with the content that the victim mainly invested funds, work, etc. to run the aggregate extraction project and distribute the profits therefrom.