The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant continued to request related persons to terminate the establishment of the right to collateral security and continued to have related persons not furnished money properly after the establishment of the right to collateral security, and he did not participate in a feassing Do, which is called a proxy on the part of the victim from the certified judicial scrivener M, and he did not allow them to establish the right to collateral security on the apartment owned by the victim by deceiving the victim from the beginning to the point of view.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 12:00 on July 2, 2015, the Defendant: (b) sold pigs supplied by the company and KRW 200 million as the purchase price for the said real estate, if the Defendant created a collateral to the victim E through D to set up a right to collateral against the company designated to obtain the supply of F apartments and real estate 102 Dong 1001, which had been owned by the victim, at the time of interesting the victim; and (c) released the right to collateral without delay if the Defendant fails to comply therewith.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, even if having received pigs by establishing a right to collateral security as above, it was not possible to pay the purchase price of KRW 200 million within a short period as well as within 10 business days after selling the said pigs and paying the purchase price of pigs to the supplier, and there was no intention or ability to cancel the right to collateral security as promised by the victim because there was no particular property, and there was no amount equivalent to KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, including the credit payment of KRW 90,000,000.

On July 2, 2015, the Defendant was set up a right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 200 million on the part of the victim’s apartment complex G and creditors H, around July 2, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and let G acquire property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

(b).