The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant does not have any false statement with regard to the market price of Damond, which is a security, as stated in the original judgment.

In addition, the defendant had an intent and ability to pay money to the victim by purchasing and operating a gas station normally, or by paying the down payment in accordance with the MOU concluded in the mineral business operated by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that it erred and convicted the Defendant.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the defendant stated in the prosecutor's office that "the defendant would offer Damond as security at the market price of 300 million or more million won when borrowing money from the victim (the second interrogation of suspect and investigation record No. 191); ② The Damond offered as security by the defendant as security was temporarily lent 50 million won to the defendant's Hon bank and temporarily borrowed 50 million won; the grade is low; ③ its market price is below 20 million won; ③ the purchase agreed to purchase 2.6 billion won from the bank loan of the gas station in the cause of 2.8 billion won and to pay the remainder 2.5 billion won at the expense of the defendant borrowed 1.5 million won from the victim, and the defendant already offered Damond to the defendant as security; and ④ the Damond's loan was made at the expense of 50 million won or more.