The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the course of purchasing H land (hereinafter “instant land”) from the injured party, the Defendant: (a) concluded a joint development agreement with F, practically represented by the injured party; and (b) concluded a joint development agreement (Evidence No. 51 of the evidence record; hereinafter “instant joint development agreement”); (c) the injured party newly constructed a building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and sold or leased it to the Defendant; or (d) additionally granted a loan for the instant land and new buildings as security, and then granted the right to pay the purchase price of the instant land to the injured party in the event that profits remain after appropriating the instant new construction cost.

In accordance with such authority, the Defendant’s cancellation of the second priority collective security (hereinafter “second priority collective security”) in the name of the victim, which was the cause of the maximum amount of the claim 300 million won on May 27, 2014, as stated in the instant facts charged on October 8, 2014, in order to obtain additional loans from financial institutions. Thus, the above cancellation act does not constitute deception, and the Defendant did not have any intention to deceive the victim.

In addition, the Defendant had the ability and intent to repay the purchase price of the instant land to the victim at the time of the instant case, and there is no intention of deception and deception.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, which found guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the above purport in the lower court.

In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court fully recognizes that the Defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant case and caused the Defendant to cancel the instant 2-mortgage, and the said assertion by the Defendant is with merit.