The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding misunderstanding [the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was erroneous as to the instant case No. 2017 High Gohap 1098 (victimO) at the Seoul Central District Court 2017 High Gohap 2017, but withdrawn the allegation of mistake on the third trial date.

1) The Defendant’s participation in the instant crime was proposed by the first E and refused to commit the instant crime. However, the Defendant participated in the instant crime at the request of a joint Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) separated from the pleading in this court.

E and B led the instant crime, and only the Defendant introduced B to the victim G and received part of the profit of the crime.

Nevertheless, the court below planned and led the Defendant to commit the instant crime.

The recognition was recognized.

2) The list of crimes in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “crime list”) is the same as the list of crimes in annexed Form 1 of the lower judgment.

The Defendant and B, on May 7, 2013, were subject to F’s share certificates from the Victim G on May 7, 2013, but the name was substituted by F’s share purchase price for the F’s share management, so there was no relation to additional loan security.

Nevertheless, on May 7, 2013, the lower court: (a) held that the Defendant was issued a share certificate of 70,000 U.S. (F) under the pretext of additional security in order to prevent the opposite trading under an agreement on stock security loans entered into prior to the decline; (b)

The recognition was recognized.

B. Legal reasoning misunderstanding [the misunderstanding of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] even if the above facts were miswritten, it is not supported.

Even if the Defendant and B loaned the amount requested by the Victim G, but they also disposed of in violation of the collateral agreement in order to keep the F-issuance share certificates offered as security in accordance with the collateral agreement, the Defendant and B act.