The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance on the following grounds as stated in its reasoning:

On July 2, 2013, the first instance court acknowledged that the Defendants filed a complaint against the cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security without filing a complaint against the Defendants on July 2, 2013 by mistake as to the intent to repay the Defendants’ loans, ability to perform their loans, and occupation of U.S., etc. by the damaged bank on December 3, 2013. The first instance court acknowledged that the damaged bank made loans by mistake as to the intent to use the right to collateral security loans, ability to perform their loans, and occupation of U.S., etc.

It is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ act and the property dispositive act of the victimized bank, and thus, the Defendants were acquitted on the part of the above loan fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.

The crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person, leaving his/her property or gain pecuniary advantage by inducing a dispositive act. There is a relation between deception and other party’s mistake and delivery of property or the offering of pecuniary advantage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Do1808, Aug. 14, 1979; 2008Do1697, Jun. 23, 2009). Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants deceiving each of the above part of the facts charged in the instant case, the content that the Defendants knew is that the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan even if the Defendants borrowed real estate as collateral, and used it for the fraudulent loan by arbitrarily cancelling the registration of creation of the right to collateral security which was completed with respect to each of the said real estate. However, the Defendants concealed it, and Defendant U’s occupation.