A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Fraud part) 1) Defendant G apartment 102 Dong 802 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

After selling in units, on April 17, 2013, the Victim Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as “victim Savings Bank”) is subject to ordinary procedures.

(2) On April 23, 2013, the Defendant requested H to terminate the collateral trust for the instant apartment. On April 23, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that there existed any money exceeding KRW 400,000,000 even after the damaged bank withdraws the money under the pretext of repayment of the loan, and only withdrawn KRW 424,00,000 on April 24, 2013 and used the money. In other words, the Defendant did not intend to withdraw and use all the proceeds of the instant apartment from the time when it requested the termination of the collateral trust on April 17, 2013 without the intent to repay the loan. In light of the specific type of operation of the instant business, the damaged bank was planned to terminate the collateral trust if the buyer performed its duty normally only as the buyer, and the said request for termination of the collateral trust cannot be deemed necessary for the establishment of fraud, and the defrauded’s mistake and dispositive act is not recognized.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by H such as the H’s legal statement, and the Defendant actually thought that the damaged bank would have withdrawn and used all the proceeds prior to withdrawal from the affected bank even if the secured trust for the apartment of this case was terminated, and even if the damaged bank did not intend to repay the proceeds of the loan with the sale price, the lower court’s 410,000,000 won should be cancelled by deceiving the damaged bank as if it would have repaid the loan normally.