The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair in sentencing) states the mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper arguments in sentencing. However, the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are related to the existing facts charged, and the prosecutor accepted the defendant's above assertion and applied for changes in indictment, and the court permitted it, so the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are not separately determined.

The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictments as stated in the following “criminal facts” in the trial at the court below, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

【Inasmuch as the Defendant borrowed KRW 320,000,000 from the victim C as collateral, on May 8, 2012, the Defendant created a second priority collective security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the victim’s claim amounting to KRW 200,000,000,000,000 as to the land owned by the Defendant Do, E, and F (hereinafter “the instant forest”).

As the business operated in this case becomes difficult due to the lack of funds, and the creditors are urged to pay their debts after borrowing money exceeding KRW 00 million from the business funds, the Defendant had the victim cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security, and had the victim receive additional loans by taking the forest of this case as security. On October 2015, the Defendant called the victim for the victim.