We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to prepare construction cost, the Defendant was delegated by G with the authority to offer two households among the buildings in the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “instant building”) as collateral. Accordingly, the sales contract in the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) was prepared in the name of G with the victim N, and the said sales contract was merely a form of the so-called “assumpt security sales contract.”

Nevertheless, the first instance court that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty has committed an unlawful act that affected the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The second instance court's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the second instance court's decision on the judgment of the second instance) did not claim as the grounds of appeal the unfair sentencing regarding the punishment sentenced by the second instance to the defendant (the second instance court's decision on the second instance court's imprisonment with prison labor for two years (one year of imprisonment).

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the case of this court 2012No3646, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the case of this court 2013No1140, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the proceedings for oral proceedings. Each of the crimes of the court 1 and the court 2013No140, which are the appeals case against the judgment of the court of second instance, is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment for which concurrent crimes are aggravated pursuant to

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is such a ground for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts (the first judgment of the court below)

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court and the first instance court as to whether the indication of real estate stated in the instant sales contract is merely a formality.