A. On June 2007, the Defendant: (a) at the time when the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the lower court, ordered the Victim F to provide the Victim F with an I forest land 97,488 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which is owned by the victim, as security; (b) the Defendant received waste treatment services equivalent to KRW 6 billion; or (c) around 2005, the Defendant would have paid KRW 100 million, which was loaned the instant real estate as security, on behalf of the victim.

In other words, there is no falsity of the victim, and the defendant has been operated.

J performed the O’s waste disposal service from around April 2006 to April 2007, and had the O’s service payment claim amounting to KRW 350 million at the time of the instant case. Since the J had real estate amounting to approximately KRW 2.8 billion at the market price, there was no intention or ability to cancel the said security.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charges of this case by misunderstanding the facts, which led the defendant to establish a right to collateral security for the amount of KRW 375,000,000 with respect to the real estate in this case as a security for the defendant's debt of KRW 250,000 against K of the defendant's money, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the maximum amount of the above

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, even if establishing a collateral for the instant real estate owned by the victim, by deceiving the victim without intent or ability to delete it, thereby creating the maximum amount of the claim concerning the instant real estate, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the maximum amount of the claim, and sufficiently recognizing the Defendant’s criminal intent to obtain fraud.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1)