The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the facts charged of mistake of facts, according to the performance agreement drawn up between the Defendant and the victim, the withdrawal of civil procedure and the cancellation of provisional attachment execution and the payment of the price (on the same occasion execution relationship) is not a payment of KRW 200 million, but a payment of KRW 194 million. Since the Defendant paid KRW 200 million to the victim, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of the claim for provisional attachment. In addition, at the time of formulating the execution agreement of this case, there was no intention or deception against the victim. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous of mistake of facts. 2) The punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant was willing to pay the amount of the promissory note even before the due date for payment of the promissory note, by deceiving the victim E to submit an application for cancellation of provisional attachment, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of the claim for provisional attachment. Therefore, the Defendant’

1. The victim filed a civil lawsuit with the defendant with the representative director C to request the payment of the amount equivalent to KRW 430 million under the name of the refund of the deposit deposit and the price of the goods, and filed an application for provisional seizure of the claim equivalent to the above amount and received the decision of acceptance.

As a result, the defendant and the victim, who are likely to impede the business due to provisional seizure of the corporate accounts, etc. of the LAC, prepared a performance agreement on June 7, 2016.

According to the terms and conditions of the performance agreement, the amount of claims and obligations to be settled between the Fund and the victim shall be settled.