The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant A’s summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) The registration of creation of a right to collateral security (hereinafter “registration of creation of a right to collateral security”) created around November 12, 2013 on the 14, 5, and 7th (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) from the Young-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “victim”) owned by the victim was not secured by the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) of F (hereinafter “F”); and (b) the Defendant did not deception B.

② Even if the instant collateral security registration includes F’s existing debt, B was aware of such content at the time of the establishment of the instant collateral security right, and thus did not err by mistake.

② The market value of the shopping mall of this case is equivalent to KRW 3.7 billion through KRW 3.8 billion, and the amount of KRW 125 billion out of the down payment and the remainder that the victim received from B should be deducted from the amount of damage. As such, the Defendant’s profit amount is the amount of KRW 3.7 billion through KRW 3.8 billion from the market value of the shopping mall of this case, which deducts the sum of the claim amount of senior collateral security, and KRW 3.4 billion from the sum of the claim amount of senior collateral security, paid by the victim from B, KRW 75 million through KRW 175 million. The punishment of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) unjust in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B In purchasing the instant commercial building from the misunderstanding of facts, the contract will pay all remainder four times until February 12, 2014, which is three months after the end of February 12, 2014.

However, in fact, there was an agreement with the victim to postpone the payment date of the balance, and it was only the wind that the supply of goods from D is interrupted due to the existing debt of A, and thus, the victim was not paid any balance. Therefore, the Defendant did not have deceiving the victim, nor did he had the intention of defraudation from the beginning.

The punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

It shall be considered ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal due to changes in indictment.

A prosecutor.