The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In addition, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim by stating to the effect that “When the victim E’s provisional seizure of the instant officetel is cancelled, it would receive additional loans as security” as stated in the facts charged as follows, and there was no fact that he/she received documents necessary for the cancellation of provisional seizure from the victim.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant is serving as the representative director of B (hereinafter “B”) from March 15, 2013 to the charge.

B On April 18, 201, 201, Cheongju-si, the petitioner-gu, and Da Officetel’s elevator installation works, etc. were awarded a contract to the victim E for the work cost of KRW 150,000,000. On January 27, 2014, the debtor E, the claimed amount of KRW 15,50,00,00 for provisional attachment registration was completed for the instant officetel F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional seizure.” On the other hand, the victim brought a lawsuit against the said company for claiming construction cost (Cheongju District Court 2015Kadan5095), and on June 10, 2015, the conciliation was concluded that “the Defendant (the said company) paid KRW 140,000,000 to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff) until August 31, 2015, and the Plaintiff shall immediately revoke the application for provisional seizure and execution of real estate as soon as he/she receives the said money from the Defendant.”

Around December 15, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “If the provisional attachment that was put on the face of the party, would receive the above real estate from the bank as collateral, the Defendant would receive the loan from the bank and pay the construction cost.”

However, even if the victim cancels provisional attachment, the defendant is 140,000.