The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On July 14, 201, the Defendant agreed to operate a sales store by investing KRW B and KRW 200 million in the charges, and the Defendant established a victim company and took office as the representative director.

The Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million, around June 15, 201, around 15, 201, KRW 30 million, and KRW 200,000,000,000,000 on September 20, 201, from his own affiliated E to raise an investment under the same business agreement. Around July 15, 2011, the Defendant borrowed a loan certificate stating that “the victim company borrows KRW 30,000,000 from E” from the victim’s office, “the victim company borrows KRW 10,000,000 from E” at the same place around July 27, 201, and around September 20, 201, the victim company issued a certificate of borrowing KRW 70,000,00 in the name of E and issued a promissory note corresponding to the total amount of the face value.”

Accordingly, the defendant suffered property damage equivalent to KRW 200 million from the victim company, and acquired property profit equivalent to the same amount to E.

2. Even based on the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the defendant's act of preparing and issuing a certificate of borrowing to secure his/her own creditor E, the representative director of the victim's company and issuing a certificate of the fairness of promissory note constitutes an abuse of the power of representation. In light of the various circumstances shown in the facts charged, E, which is a creditor's interest on each of the above loans and promissory note fairness deed, is deemed to have been aware that he/she knew or could have known that he/she abused his/her authority for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party

If so, the defendant prepares a loan certificate in the name of the victim company E.