The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. According to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the court below rejected the application of the applicant for compensation, and pursuant to the foregoing Article 32(4), the applicant for compensation did not file an appeal against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part dismissing the application for compensation was immediately

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The victim of the mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles is the defendant who is engaged in the bond business and the real estate development business, and made an investment by hearing a sufficient explanation about the business. Thus, the defendant did not deceive the victim, nor did he commit the crime of defraudation.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. On June 2006, the Defendant, as a successor to the military, had a friendly victim C, while running real estate business with a view to gaining a lot of profits, and had a mind to invest in the bond business where it is unclear whether to lend money from the damaged party.

On July 8, 2006, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate with the Defendant’s investment in the “E” office used by the Defendant in the Daegu Suwon-gu Office for the operation of the bond business, and offered the Victim’s land located in F by creating a collateral on the said land, borrowed KRW 40 million from the damaged Party by providing a collateral by establishing a collateral on the said land, and borrowed KRW 40 million from the damaged Party, and paid the light interest on the 12th of the same month,

8.2. The principal amount of KRW 40 million was returned to the injured party to believe that the injured party was the Defendant.

around August 2, 2006, the Defendant, at the above “E” office around August 2, 2006, would have been able to say that the Defendant would have lent money to the Defendant.

The same right to collateral security is not necessary to lend money with the belief of the lending of the loan, and it is only 40 million won that the payment has been made.