The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for eight months, respectively.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of borrowing the instant loan, the Defendants had the intent and ability to complete the registration of the transfer of ownership under E-Ba 201 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) as indicated in the facts charged by the Defendants at the time of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Accordingly, after the due date of payment of borrowed bonds for the purpose of securing the construction cost, the creditorO attached the loan of this case and entrusted the registration of preservation of ownership on January 14, 2013. In order to repay the debt to the aboveO, the creditor P borrowed KRW 400 million from the bond company with the entire loan of this case as joint collateral was borrowed to pay the construction cost, and the sale demand was less anticipated after the completion permission was completed on May 2013.

This situation makes it impossible to complete the registration of the transfer of ownership to the victim.

In the end, there was no intention to commit fraud against the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court’s respective sentence against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A’s imprisonment for six months and Defendant B’s imprisonment for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, and at the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to delete the part of the facts charged No. 8 in the indictment of this case, “I do not sell the loan at all,” and this court permitted this, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, there is a need to determine the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles despite the above reasons for reversal of authority. Therefore, this is examined below.

B. The following facts and circumstances are examined according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court.