The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) With respect to Jeju-si E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, or M (hereinafter “the instant land”), the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “N”) was completed in the Agricultural Partnership N (hereinafter “N”) established by the Defendant. It is not because R and the Defendant actually entered into a sales contract for the instant land as indicated in the facts charged, but R, the actual owner of the instant land, as seen above, was entrusted to the victim’s family members, etc., but if it is anticipated that the administrative fine was imposed on the instant land by the victim, etc., to divide the instant land. In addition, it is likely that R, the actual owner of the instant land, as described in the facts charged, was entrusted to the victim’s family members, etc., and thus, the land in the name of N in the name of the Defendant in order to divide it into the instant land.

2) In addition, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the victim (hereinafter “registration of the creation of the right to collateral security”) with respect to the instant land was only formally completed on February 4, 2009, based on the content of a self-sale agreement, in order to prepare for the tax-related issues, and it does not have been completed in order to ensure the existence of the secured obligation against the victim.

Therefore, since the act of establishing the above right to collateral security is null and void as a false collective mark, the registration of establishing the right to collateral security was cancelled, and it was not re-established.

The defendant had N gain pecuniary advantage equivalent to the maximum amount of 1.4 billion won of the above claim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Even if cancellation of a mortgage which does not have a secured obligation for household affairs is recognized as fraud, it shall not be recognized that the maximum amount of 1.4 billion won, which is not the secured obligation amount, shall not be recognized as the amount by fraud, and shall not be specified in money.