The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant received 600 million won from the injured party on March 27, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant money”) from the injured party (hereinafter “E”), is not a borrowed loan from the Defendant’s investment in E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant did not need to provide the victim with Aluminium (hereinafter “the instant security”) as security on the premise that the Defendant bears the above 600 million won repayment obligation.

In addition, on March 26, 2013, the content that the money of this case is borrowed from the injured party in the process and the security of this case is provided to the injured party as a security (hereinafter “Fair Loan Deed”) is prepared only in the form different from the fact, in the case of the injured party’s request, as the wife of the injured party feel unstable in investment in the above money, it is not effective.

Therefore, the Defendant, who did not have any reason to provide the victim with the instant collateral, was obligated to notify the victim of whether the priority transfer security was established on the instant collateral.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) Even if the Defendant, by preparing the instant process deed, provided the instant security to the victim as a collateral for transfer (hereinafter “second transfer security”), at the time, the instant security was provided as a senior transfer security (hereinafter “first transfer security”).

On April 19, 2012 between E and HCN, the agreement was later terminated by self-agreement on September 3, 2012.

Therefore, the defendant, at the time of preparation of the process deed of this case, has the security of this case in a state of extinction.