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. At the time of the preparation of the agreement, the Defendant had the intent and ability to transfer the right to collateral security to D.

Since then, D notified D of the rescission of the agreement, and only filed an application for auction with the belief that the agreement was normally rescinded.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). B. In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court, the defendant and D drafted an agreement to adjust claims and obligations arising in the course of carrying out investment and development projects, etc. for the same period on April 23, 2012 (hereinafter “Agreement”).

D At the time, the Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to transfer the Defendant’s right (hereinafter referred to as “the instant neighboring mortgage”) in the name of the Defendant’s wife H, as set forth in No. 255 of K 2 shopping mall No. 255 of Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, to transfer the said right (hereinafter referred to as “the instant neighboring mortgage”).

In addition, within one year after this was implemented, D agreed to pay KRW 100 million to the defendant, and the defendant agreed to provide D with the execution of auction on the claim established on the sixth floor of K commercial building.

Although the Defendant received KRW 50 million from D in accordance with the instant agreement, he did not perform his duty of transfer, such as taking the registration procedure for change of the name of the right to collateral security in the instant case.

The defendant's written agreement of this case.