The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) After the termination of the instant right to collateral security, the Defendant and C and the Defendant agreed to prepare a loan certificate of KRW 100 million on October 18, 2010, and thus, did not re-establish the right to collateral security again; (b) however, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) The sentence of imprisonment (six months) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the damage (3,605,000 won) calculated by deducting the equivalent value of the above chonsegwon from the damage amount of the instant case (63,605,000 won) even though the registration of prior lease on a deposit basis was cancelled prior to the cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage on the neighboring area of the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, such as ex officio determination, the crime of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act is established by deceiving another person to deliver property or acquiring pecuniary benefits from the defective intent resulting therefrom. The essence of the crime of fraud is to acquire property or pecuniary benefits from deception, thereby infringing upon the other party’s property. As such, it does not require the other party to incur real property damage, and it does not require that the value of the property or pecuniary benefits received therefrom is much much much (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do7288, Apr. 9, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12928, Dec. 9, 2010). In the event of cancelling the right to collateral security established on one’s own real property by deceiving another person, the cancellation of the right to collateral security by itself is not itself.