A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act is subject to prosecution. Since the victim revoked the complaint before the court of first instance rendered a judgment, the prosecution against this part of the facts charged should be dismissed. However, the court of first instance erred by misapprehending the legal principles that acquitted the Defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The charge of violating the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act among the facts charged in the instant case is a crime falling under Article 60(1) of the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act, and can be prosecuted only when the injured party files a complaint pursuant to Article 61 of the same Act.

According to the statement of "the letter of withdrawal of complaint" bound in the trial records, the victim Busan Bank, which was the Busan Bank, can recognize the fact that it revoked the defendant's complaint on May 15, 2013, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, since it was after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the court of first instance should have rendered a judgment dismissing this part of the prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5

Nevertheless, the first instance court found the defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the effect of revocation of complaint, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the part concerning the violation of the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act in the judgment of the court of first instance should be reversed on the grounds of the prosecutor's appeal on such violation, and the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which was treated as a single crime in the form of an excessive competition, should also be reversed along with the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation in Office). Thus, without examining the prosecutor's decision

Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court shall be based on the judgment of the court of first instance.