The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

A. The Defendant’s assertion and his defense counsel withdrawn the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles that there was no fact that the Defendant has conspiredd to commit the crime of fraud by deception with D, G and defrauded on the grounds of appeal on the fourth trial date of the first instance trial.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable compared to the degree of responsibility of the defendant.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of violating the Act on Mortgage on Factories and Mining Foundations that the Defendant, by misunderstanding the fact by rejecting the confession statement of D, who is an accomplice without any reasonable grounds, sold flass attached to the factory foundation, part of the factory foundation, and that the Defendant sold flass attached to the factory foundation.

(2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is unreasonable as it is excessively unfortunate compared to the extent of Defendant’s responsibility.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged and the summary of this part of the facts charged by the lower court are as follows: “A around June 7, 2012, the Defendant conspired with D and sold flass attached flass to AT, which is the object of mortgage over the factory foundation of the Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., in collusion with D, at KRW 6,268,190.

The court below found Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including D’s statement, alone, is insufficient to prove the facts charged in light of the contents of M’s statement or written request for removal of le-day, and the proceeds of sale of le-day are not so large.

B. The main evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this part of the judgment of the party deliberation was stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below to the effect that “the removal of the le-day was decided with the Defendant” was stated respectively in the investigation agency and the court of the court below, but D was unaware of whether the le-day was a property on which the le-day

The list of the collateral security is not called "appurtenant facilities", but the list is not stipulated as "responding facilities".

A Ban is not included in an ordinary incidental facility, and Hayday.