The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On February 24, 2010, the Defendants asserted the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Defendants: (a) prepared and delivered a sales contract with the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) as security for KRW 370 million; (b) on the land E 103 and 104 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”); (c) on April 15, 2010, the due date is set at KRW 103 and 104 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”); and (d) on the other hand, the Defendants agreed not to raise an objection even after voluntary disposal after the due date. Since the said agreement constitutes a pre-sale contract for the purpose of collateral payment, the Defendants constitute “person who administers another’s business” under Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act, even if the said agreement constitutes a pre-sale contract for the purpose of collateral payment, the Defendants do not constitute “person who administers another’s business.”

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant guilty of the primary charges of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though Defendant B obtained the victim’s consent to the disposition before Defendant B disposing of the commercial building in this case to G.

C. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged 1 as to the primary facts charged (the grounds for appeal by the defendants) was to build a commercial building E on the land of Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu and 2 lots of land, Goyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, and the Defendant invested KRW 70 million from the victim around 2006, but failed to pay the amount of KRW 70 million.

Accordingly, on August 20, 2009, the victim claimed the amount of 1,629,927.