The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant, by deceiving the representative director D Co., Ltd. of the victim and causing loss of the security right of KRW 200 million, and even if it could be recognized that he had acquired property benefits equivalent to the same amount E, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground of

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the following changes in the facts charged at the time of the trial. Since the subject of the trial was changed by this court's permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

In this paragraph, we examine this.

After revising the facts charged, the Defendant is a person who operates C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling save electric wires.

On August 26, 2009, the Defendant made a registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with respect to the housing of 218.1 square meters and above ground and second-class housing owned by the Defendant as the victim company, and with the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million, to secure the obligation of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “victim Co., Ltd.”).

Defendant

On November 30, 2010, the Company acquired the ownership of 11,438 square meters of land for three lots outside G and 3 lots of land (hereinafter “factory and site”) on the ground of sale by voluntary auction.

On April 201, the Defendant was requested to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring facilities by patrolmen E on April 201, and the facts are as follows: (a) even if the victim company cancels the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring facilities, the Defendant’s obligation of transaction payment is prompt.