The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not deceiving C to the effect that, while accepting C’s obligation with respect to D, the mortgage transfer, which was intended to be transferred as security, was prohibited.

In addition, in this case, the defendant exempted the C's obligation to D from liability.

or D may not be deemed to have made an act of disposal by which the obligation of C is finally exempted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of fraud aimed at misleading facts or exempting debts, which affected the conclusion of

2. Determination

A. On September 2012, the summary of the facts charged, knowing that C borrowed KRW 180 million from D was not repaid by the Defendant, the Defendant, who was aware of the fact that D had been urged to pay the said KRW 180,000,000, was trying to accept the Defendant’s obligation with immunity.

However, around July 2008, the Defendant agreed to provide C with interest of 3.5% or 5% per month on the pretext of main oil business, stocks, gold futures investment, etc. and agreed to borrow 100 million won or more from C from that time to that of the commencement of the loan from around 2012, and increased the amount of the loan from September 2012, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay C even if C’s debt was taken over with respect to C due to the absence of any specific property, even though C’s debt was not 4 billion won, due to the fact that C’s debt was not able to repay the borrowed amount due to the lack of any specific property.

In addition, the Defendant set up a right to collateral security of KRW 150 million with respect to the F apartment No. 103, 106 owned by E at the time, but the said right to collateral security is not based on the secured debt actually existing, but rather on E futures trading.