All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) At the time of committing each crime in the first instance judgment against the lower judgment, the Defendant had the intent to repay and ability to repay the victim D.

In addition, in relation to the crime of Paragraph 1 of the holding, the defendant was informed the victim of the fact that the four-time vehicle provided as security at the time of borrowing money from the victim D is a leased vehicle, so there is no deception for the victim.

In relation to the crime of Paragraph 2, the Defendant did not induce the victim because the Defendant, at the time of borrowing KRW 40,000 to the victim, planned to borrow KRW 14.3 billion from the Korea Asset Trust to repay the borrowed amount, and thus, did not induce the victim.

Therefore, even if there is no proof of a crime, each of the above facts charged is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that found all of them guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) On July 17, 2012, the Defendant issued a letter to the effect that he/she promised to surrender to V, a person who created the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to a building recorded in the facts constituting a crime of the second instance judgment (hereinafter “instant building”) on July 17, 2012, but it does not constitute a waiver of the right to collateral that the Defendant was exercising.

Therefore, since the right of retention reported by the defendant is not a false right of retention, this part of the facts charged does not prove a crime.

In this regard, the second instance court which found the defendant guilty erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance court: 1 year of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, 2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, this Court tried at ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and this Court tried by combining each appeal case against the judgment below. Each of the offenses committed by the judgment below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below