The judgment below

Of the judgment below, the part concerning the crimes Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 1, 2, and 3 as stated in the judgment below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (limited to the crime No. 2 in the holding of the court below) Defendant borrowed KRW 400 million from the victim I according to D’s instructions as a general staff member of K&C operated by D. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intention of deception or deception.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 as indicated in the lower judgment, and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 4 as indicated in the holding, and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment of the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the facts of the Defendant’s amendment of indictment (limited to the crimes No. 5 of the judgment of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below), the application of the law to “Article 323 and Article 40 of the Criminal Act” is changed from “Article 323 of the Criminal Act” to “Article 323 of the Criminal Act,” and the application of the law to change the indictment to “Article 323 and Article 40 of the Criminal Act” as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the object of the trial was legally changed by this court’s permission.

The crimes of Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the decision of the court below, including this part, should be sentenced to a single punishment for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the part concerning the crimes of Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the decision of the court below among the judgment below

Although there are such reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

On September 20, 2018, the Defendant: (a) purchased a AA car from the Y agency located in X at the East Sea, through the Z company; (b) entered into a loan agreement on the condition that the said AA car be offered as security and the said A car be repaid at a monthly interest rate of 4.3% per annum of 630,775 won; (c) around September 21, 2018, the Defendant created a mortgage on the above vehicle amounting to KRW 6.8 million in the value of the claim in the name of the Z; and (d) on February 11, 2019, the victim located in the Busan-gu Busan Special Metropolitan City BH building.