A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below is difficult to predict that there was a problem in establishing a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as “instant collateral security contract”) that covers the victim-based financial holding company in the decision of the court of dispute resolution (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) with respect to the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as “mortgage security contract”) that covers the victim-based financial holding company in the decision of the court of dispute resolution as to the amount of N-si X 27,047 square meters on October 5, 2012.

The Defendant has not conspired to commit any of the crimes in this part.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each part of the facts charged is erroneous by violating the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

(2) The victim company related to the amount obtained by deceit will supply the transit equivalent to KRW 2 billion to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. within the maximum maximum debt amount of KRW 3 billion, and supply the transit equivalent to KRW 1.7 billion after deducting the amount of excess credit limit of KRW 300 million. Thus, even if the defendant committed a crime in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the acquired amount shall be deemed to exceed KRW 1.7 billion.

B) The part of Paragraph 8 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below (the part of the case 2017Dahap274) (the plaintiff), while the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd was not receiving KRW 300 million from AF for the payment of the oil price, the victim AF lent KRW 120 million to AF or the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. upon receiving a request from AF to lend money for the payment of the oil price, and at the time, the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the money. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and is sentenced to an unfair sentencing