Afterward, while J borrowed KRW 300 million from the injured party to change the preferred profit-making person of the instant right to benefit in the name of the injured party, the instant right to benefit in the context of the injured party, however, not only the victim’s claim amounting to KRW 320 million (the above claim amounting to KRW 320 million) but also the remainder of the claim amount in excess of the above claim amount, the original J still guarantees the claim for the above contract payment amount. Therefore, the amount obtained by fraud of the instant crime should be deemed to be KRW 750 million.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles that limit the scope of the secured obligation of the right to benefit of this case to KRW 320 million, and found the defendant not guilty of the grounds for the excessive portion.

Sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment for each of the Defendants, two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uncomfortable and unfair.

Judgment

As to the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court held that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, namely, ① the specific amount of benefit acquired by the waiver of creditor’s security right, is the amount of secured debt or the maximum amount of the claim secured by the pertinent security right; ② The victim, while lending money to J, changed the victim’s claim to the person who was transferred the right to benefit of this case by transfer from J as a security, shall be deemed as only the victim’s claim as a security; ③ According to the agreement concluded on April 14, 2014 between the victim and the person who was the creditor and the person who was the debtor, the Court bears the obligation until June 14, 2014, the due date for payment by J.