The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The act of the defendant by mistake of fact to dispose of the purpose of a mortgage to another person constitutes a crime of interference with the exercise of rights.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in October, and two hundred hours of community service) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the prosecutor’s appeal before determining the grounds for appeal.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for the alteration of the indictment to exchange interference with the exercise of rights as a breach of trust among the facts charged, and as the subject of the trial is changed by this court's permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Articles 364(2) and 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor’s mistake of facts and the unfair assertion of sentencing, on the grounds that there are grounds for reversal ex officio as above, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 to the actual column of the criminal history as shown below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. On December 6, 2012, the Defendant purchased D4.5 tons of car trucks from the ELP office in the name of ELP office located in Seogu Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, 774, under the name of her mother, and was granted a loan of KRW 67 million from the son Capital Co., Ltd. in order to secure this, the Defendant established a right to collateral security for the said car trucks with the mortgagee as the victim, the secured debt amount of KRW 46.9 million. Thus, the Defendant had the duty to keep the said car trucks in compliance with the purpose of collateral until the repayment of the loan was made.

Nevertheless, on March 12, 2013, the defendant violated the above duties and received 6.5 million won from the person who was unaware of his name at the Northwest-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon.