The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant, a real owner of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) may obtain a bank loan as collateral of the CB’s CB’s CB’s wing ticket, reliance on the economic value of the CB’s wing ticket, presented the CB’s wing ticket to H and borrow money.

Since there was a change in circumstances such as unilaterally destroying a contract for construction work, etc., and then E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) fails to pay the above money to the damaged company, unlike the defendant’s anticipated, there was no intention to commit deception or fraud.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, under the title “determination as to the Defendant’s assertion,” provided a detailed statement of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and, in full view of such circumstances, fully

The decision was determined.

A thorough examination by comparing the above judgment of the court below with the records, and in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The J, the representative director of the Corporation E, agreed to pay 20,000 won in lieu of the D and the construction cost, in the court of original instance, in lieu of the D and the construction cost.

This is because there was a lack of cash necessary for the commencement of construction works from D and there was a need for large amount of money.

20,000 above.