A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The lower right in the name of E, which was cancelled by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, (hereinafter “instant collateral”) is not established for the purpose of collateral security, but rather established for the trust of the investor E.

Since there was no secured claim from the beginning, it is not a loss of the value of the secured claim to be returned with the loan, on the ground that the right to collateral was cancelled.

The Defendant only requested E to cancel the instant right to collateral security in accordance with the investment terms and conditions presented by G (the purport to make an investment with the cancellation of the instant right to collateral security) and would also cancel the instant right to collateral security even after the priority right.

there is no phrase.

E is expected to anticipate the risk of the defendant's credit condition and impossibility of repayment, but he has waived the right to collateral security based on his own judgment, so there is no intention to commit deception and fraud against the defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine 1) In full view of the existence of a secured claim against the instant right to collateral security and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it appears that the nature of the money that E paid to the Defendant around June 17, 2010, on which the instant right to collateral security was created, was converted from the investment amount to the loan.

Even if the right to collateral security has not been converted to a loan, the defendant's assertion that there is no secured claim is without merit, since the right to collateral security in this case can be deemed to have been established for the purpose of securing the right to return the investment deposit.

① E invested KRW 160,000,000 to first participate in the project.

However, according to the investment contract (Evidence No. 39 No. 5) drawn up by the Defendant and E around May 25, 2008, the Defendant paid 15% monthly dividends to E, but the instant case.