The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 26, 2011, the Defendant, in the course of borrowing KRW 70 million from the injured party, did not in itself deception the use of the loan in the course of borrowing KRW 70 million from the injured party.

In other words, the Defendant was operating a factory in Jeju-do with money including KRW 70 million borrowed from the injured party according to the original purpose of the borrowed money explained by the injured party.

O Payment of KRW 40 million to P, the representative of the agricultural partnership, was made on July 28, 201, KRW 60 million on August 3, 201, KRW 40 million on August 4, 2011, and KRW 40 million on August 4, 201.

Nevertheless, there is a criminal intent to commit deception and fraud at the time of borrowing by the defendant.

In light of this, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment.

2) As to the fraud of KRW 200 million on August 3, 2011, when the Defendant leased the instant commercial building No. 1401 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) to the victim, the Defendant notified that the instant commercial building was a collateral trust to one bank, and the victim confirmed the certified copy of the registry and the trust register attached to the certified copy of the registry, and there was no deception of the victim.

Moreover, the commercial building of this case did not have a security trust in the Han Bank.

However, since there was a priority holder for the instant commercial building, F's lease deposit is protected in the order of priority rather than the priority mortgagee, such as one bank, etc. In the end, F's lease deposit was not disadvantaged due to the failure of F to have a right of lease on a deposit basis.

Nevertheless, there was a criminal intent to commit deception and fraud at the time of receiving the above deposit to the defendant.

In light of this, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment.

B. The lower court’s unfair assertion of sentencing is too likely to have sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment with labor for the Defendant.