The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, after completion of the instant accommodation facility between the victim and the victim, agreed to pay the construction cost by receiving the loan as security. However, the victim made the above agreement and made a provisional attachment on the site of the accommodation facility as soon as possible.

When the defendant was unable to obtain a loan due to provisional seizure, the defendant prepared the notarial deed of this case without properly verifying the remaining construction amount claimed by the victim.

The remaining construction cost that the defendant did not pay to the victim is less than the amount stated in the notarial deed of this case, and the defendant was given a loan to the accommodation of this case as security, but less loans than expected loans and not paid the construction cost to the victim. Therefore, the defendant has no intention to acquire it by fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

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

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the principal purpose of the victim’s provisional seizure was to receive a preferential repayment of one’s own construction cost, and the victim did not release the provisional seizure in the absence of the first priority repayment agreement. However, in light of the Defendant’s details of loan payments and the statement after the Defendant’s authentic deed was prepared, it appears that the Defendant had no intent to preferentially repay his/her obligations to the victim even at the time of the preparation of the authentic deed of this case, and ② the Defendant’s loan amount exceeds the lending ratio under the statutory provision in the course of counseling with the person in charge of the P bank to obtain a loan on March 4, 2016.