The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

A. Since the Defendant provided sufficient security to the victim, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and did not have any intent to defraud the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court rejected the above assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, while explaining detailed circumstances

However, the court below's judgment is just in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and the court below's reasoning is acceptable. The defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

1) The crime of fraud is established by deceiving the other party and receiving property by the defective intent of the other party. If a property was received by deceiving the other party from a false fact, etc., the crime of fraud is established, if sufficient security has been provided, or there has been no damage to the whole property of the victim, and even if a loan has been repaid thereafter, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7262, Apr. 29, 2005). 2) According to the records of this case, the defendant, as security against the loan amount of KRW 200 million on February 1, 2016, completed the registration of creation of a mortgage amount of KRW 200 million with respect to the real estate of this case as security, but this is recognized, in light of the legal principles as seen in the judgment of the court below, the defendant deceiving the victim from the victim on January 25, 2016 to January 27, 2016.