The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from J, the representative of the I Co., Ltd., at the H construction site office around March 17, 201, and acquired the instant vessel by arbitrarily selling the instant vessel as security, while the Defendant leased sand dredging lines owned by the victim from F, the representative of the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), which are the victim, for the victim, (hereinafter “G”), around February 201.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment on August 31, 2012 by Busan District Court Decision 2012Da6810, 2012 Godan9681 (merger). The Defendant appealed against it as Busan District Court Decision 2012No3690, 2013No324 (merger), but the appeal was dismissed on March 15, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 23, 2013. The facts of the crime are as follows: “The Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million to the VictimJ even though the owner of the instant vessel is not the owner of the instant vessel, the Defendant would offer the instant vessel as security and received KRW 30 million from the VictimJ for 30 million until the end of 2010,000,000,000 from the date of loan to the end of 30 years,00,000 won from the date of loan.”

2. If the facts are revealed, the crime of fraud of the established crime of this case and the crime of embezzlement of this case differs not only from the elements of the crime of this case, the form of the act and the legal interest protected by the law, but also differ significantly from the nature of the crime. Thus, the identity between the crime of this case and