The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s act of transferring the above loan to the victim’s co-owner of the same Ri E, 816 square meters, and 342 square meters of the same Ri F. (hereinafter “the instant land”) in the course of sale of the said land to G, which is the co-owner of the victim and the Defendant, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to whether he was guilty on the premise that he had ownership of the part equivalent to the victim’s co-ownership share among the loan that he received, even though he agreed that G would have to hold until he succeeded to the obligation of the loan, he would have obtained a loan in the name of the Defendant and succeeded to the obligation of the loan.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that, in full view of the fact that the Defendant provided the entire land of this case, which is co-owned real estate with the consent of the victim, as collateral and received a loan, and that the purpose of use was specified that the loan should be appropriated by the proceeds from the sale of equity through the procedure such as succeeding to the buyer’s debts, etc., the Defendant, despite recognizing that the Defendant was in a custodian’s status with respect to the money corresponding to the share sale price of the victim, who is a co-owner, out of the above loan, could be recognized, insofar as the Defendant transferred the money equivalent to the victim’

B. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court, the lower court duly adopted and examined the evidence.