The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 3,00,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not receive interest KRW 9.2 million out of the amount loaned to C, and did not unfairly require additional interest, but did not unfairly require additional interest to F who is an auction expert. The Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud because he was aware that the accurate amount of the secured bond was determined and adjusted between F and C in the course of transferring the instant claim to F.

B. The lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though it did not constitute an indirect offense by omission, on the ground that the Defendant, after transferring F the instant collateral security claim to F, was entirely involved in F’s auction or distribution procedure.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of KRW 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor examined the case in question, and the case in question applied for the applicable provisions of this case, "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act", and applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment with the contents of the facts charged as stated below added alternatively to the facts charged, and this court found the defendant guilty of selective addition of the facts charged as stated below after granting permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the facts charged before and after the alteration are not identical because there is a substantial difference in the contents and behavior of the crime such as means and methods, and the result of the crime.

The prosecutor may add, delete, or modify the facts charged or the applicable provisions of Acts stated in the indictment with the permission of the court within the extent not impairing the identity of the facts charged, and the identity of the facts charged is maintained if the social facts that serve as the basis of the facts charged are the same in basic respects.