The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The Defendant, along with the victim B, entered into a joint agreement with the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land Holdings as a collateral, and provided the building owned by the victim as a collateral and carried out the project, and the building owned by the victim was sold at the latest, and the sum of dividends to four persons holding provisional attachment, including F, was deposited at the Seoul Central District Court on January 14, 2016.

The above provisional seizure right holder is the person who has taken over the "claim that the defendant claims against the victim in relation to the above business," and as the claimant did not recognize his/her obligation and filed a lawsuit against the victim for the claim for the amount of money taken over, and is still pending in the trial of the first instance, the court is unable to pay the dividend until the lawsuit for the claim for the amount of money taken over is finalized and thus deposited.

Therefore, in order for the above provisional attachment right holder to actually receive the deposited dividend, the situation was that the right holder should first prevail in the claim for the amount of takeover, and the decision of winning the claim should be waited until the judgment of winning it becomes final and conclusive.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim and preparing a notarial deed, had the above provisional seizure authority receive the deposit promptly, and had the amount equivalent to the money used by himself.

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would bring KRW 200 million out of the money to the victim as the victim would have received KRW 1 billion on the basis of the notarial deed if the victim would receive the loan from the person holding the provisional seizure as if he borrowed money directly from the person holding the provisional seizure.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant promptly receives the deposit by means of notarial acts with the victim's cooperation, it was thought that he will use it as an urgent personal debt repayment, etc., and then 200 million won.