The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

except that, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant agreed with the representative G of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) (hereinafter “F”), the purchaser of the said real estate, to not receive the actual loan as security, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the entire purchase price, since there is no act of breach of duty, since there is no act of breach of duty, in order to protect the land and the building on the land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on 27 lots, including the land and the building on the land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the upper-tier, which are 4,258 square meters prior to the branch of the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, which is the victim.

In addition, since G obtained a loan of the instant real estate as collateral in violation of the above agreement, the defendant, who was deceiving from G, did not have the intention of breach of trust, and did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition because he did not take personal benefits due to the creation of the above collateral security and the loan.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s recognition of breach of trust is unlawful.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts or circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is just and the judgment of the court below which held that "the defendant is recognized to have established the mortgage right of this case on the part of the lender (a lending bank) and let the lender borrow a loan from the lender because he violated his duties as the chairperson of the victim clan," and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

① The Defendant is the president of the victim’s clan at the time of establishment of the instant mortgage.