In order to obtain money from a third party or to obtain goods from a third party on credit, property benefits acquired by a third party by deceiving a third party on real estate owned by the third party is the profit which can be used as a collateral for the transaction with the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do119, Apr. 10, 1984; 96Do384, Mar. 22, 1996). The value of the real estate is, in principle, equivalent to the maximum amount of claims within the market value of the real estate. Meanwhile, in cases where another real estate is already established, the person who acquired a subordinated mortgage on the real estate shall be deemed to have already been aware of the value of the collateral equal to the maximum amount of claims, and in principle, it shall be deemed that the person who acquired the subordinated mortgage has a value equivalent to the amount of the senior mortgage claim at the time of the establishment of the mortgage claim within the scope of the market value of the real estate if there is no special circumstance to recognize the amount of the senior mortgage claim.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the court of first instance, the defendant was unable to be supplied with alcoholic beverages exceeding the credit transaction limit of the defendant's credit amount on October 1996, Obriju Co., Ltd. as of 190, and 200, 2000, 300, 2000, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 200, 300, 300, 200, 300, 200, 30, 300, 200, 300, 300, 300, 300, 20, 300, 300, 300, 300, 200, 00.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that recognized the total of 700,000,000 won as the amount of profit of the defendant caused by the above fraud immediately.

According to the fact-finding report prepared in each fact-finding inquiry report prepared in Maererer Co., Ltd. and 2BG Co., Ltd. (former trade name: 2.00,000 won) which attached to the records, the appraisal price of the real estate of this case is recognized to have been 925,00,000,000, and according to the certified copy of the registry of the real estate of this case (not more than 6,000,000 won out of 6,000 won) prior to the establishment of the mortgage of this case, the real estate of this case had two cases where the mortgage of this case was established in the name of the non-party Gwangju Mutual Savings and Finance Co., Ltd., and the maximum amount of the claim is 5,00,000,000 won (925,000,000 won-5,546,000,000 won) which is the minimum amount for applying Article 3 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

Nevertheless, without examining the aforementioned special circumstances, the court below immediately concluded that the aggregate amount of the claims of the right to collateral security of this case is the amount of profit of the defendant caused by the fraud of this case against the loss of the victim. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amount of profit under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and it is obvious that such illegality has influenced the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the ground of

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) cannot be maintained as it is, and the judgment of the court below convicts all the criminal facts different from this part and imposed a single punishment by deeming that the case constitutes a substantive concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in entirety and the case is remanded to the court below

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)