The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for two years from the date the above judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and 1) The loan of this case is related to E business, and there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim with respect to the use of the fund under the name of C business as shown in the facts charged. 2) The victim believed and lent the F (Representative H)'s ability to repay and the value of the collateral offered. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there exists a causal relationship between the defendant'

3) The failure to repay the instant loan is due to the failure of the F representative Director H to waive the order of acceptance of civil engineering works and to waive financial assistance to D for the unexpected reasons. It is not the Defendant’s criminal intent to acquire money at the time of borrowing the instant loan. Furthermore, the Defendant’s punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (a year of imprisonment is too unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the original court and the trial court, the following facts are recognized. A) The Defendant became aware of the victim by explaining the real estate development project around 2006.

From November 2006 to October 2007, the victim has lent a total of KRW 1.1 billion in the real estate business conducted by the defendant, which was the head of the headquarters, and among them, KRW 300 million has been issued as land purchase for soil and stone and soil and sand gathering business in relation to the E business promoted by D.

B) On October 29, 2007, the LAD purchased a forest land of 595 square meters in Gwangjuyang-si, Jeonyang-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer at around that time. Since then, the provisional seizure of the claim amounting to KRW 180 million in the creditor J’s claim amount as of May 21, 2008 and KRW 431 million in the claim amount as of August 25, 2008 was completed, and the defendant explained to the victim as of November 2009 about the above business, which is another collection business.