The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment with the purport of changing the facts charged and the summary of evidence in the reasoning of the judgment below which re-written the facts charged pursuant to paragraph (2) of the judgment below among the facts charged in this case, as stated in the judgment below. This court permitted this change, and the remainder of the facts charged in the judgment below as stated in the judgment below should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment of the court below] The criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court are as follows, and the summary of evidence is as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the modification of the second to third to first as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant: (a) was unable to repay the said loan principal and interest KRW 120 million to the victim C on the agreed date; (b) the victim was a third party obligor with respect to the credit card sales claim on the first floor, whereby the Defendant was the Ulsan-gu F building in which the Defendant actually operated under the name of his mother and the credit card company in which the “G main store” is traded by the “G main store” in the name of his mother; and (c) requested a seizure and collection order on the credit card sales claim on the G main store on May 18, 2016, and executed it with the ruling issued

In order to avoid the seizure of card sales, the Defendant, without any cause, under the name of the business owner at the Ulsan Tax Office around July 11, 2016.