The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles made a registration of creation of collateral security in the course of borrowing money in order to cancel provisional attachment and provisional disposition established on the land of this case. If the victim paid the balance properly, the registration of creation of collateral security could be cancelled due to the balance.

However, since the victim was unable to pay the balance due to the failure to obtain the permission of the factory in the land of this case, the defendant was also unable to cancel the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage, there was no intention of breach of trust or illegal acquisition.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 29, 2008, the Defendant was delegated by five landowners, such as C, and entered into a real estate sales contract with the victim F, etc., for the E-real estate office located in G, H through I, H through K, J, K, and L, which is owned by C, etc., and accordingly, received KRW 450 million from the foreign exchange bank account in the name of the Defendant on the same day as the down payment. On May 14, 2008, the Defendant was transferred KRW 300 million to the same account as the part payment. As such, on July 31, 2008, the remainder payment date was received, and at the same time, transferred complete ownership without any legal restriction on the said land to the victim.

Nevertheless, around June 2, 2008, the Defendant borrowed KRW 150 million from M as collateral and offered N or I forest land among the above land as collateral, and around June 3, 2008, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million equivalent to the maximum debt amount of KRW 200 million with M as collateral.

As a result, the defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to the above collateral value and caused the same loss to the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment held that the Defendant’s legal statement (as of the third trial date), the protocol of statement by the police against theO, and the protocol of statement by the police.