All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repay to the victim at the time of requesting the termination of the right to collateral security.

On October 2014, after the Defendant agreed on November 11, 2014 to change the buyer’s side and the payment date of the remainder, the Defendant paid off the other obligations that were not the obligation to the victim first.

Therefore, the lower court's finding that there was no intention or ability to repay since the request for termination of the right of termination was erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Judgment of the court below on the ground that the sentence imposed by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable

A. 1) The following facts are acknowledged according to the premise of fact-finding and the evidence adopted by the lower court and the appellate court.

① While the Defendant was an employee of the original selling company in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, the Defendant became aware of the victim’s transaction relationship with the said company. The Defendant borrowed KRW 130 million from the victim to directly operate the original selling company, and entered into a monetary consumption lending contract with the interest rate of KRW 500,000 per month on December 6, 2012.

On December 13, 2010, the Defendant registered a business operator with the trade name “I” and operated an original seller.

② While the Defendant was seeking to purchase an apartment in around 2012 and purchase it, the Defendant requested the victim to extend the payment period of KRW 130 million for the newly purchased apartment to secure the outstanding amount arising from the said KRW 130 million and the original transaction, instead of creating the right to collateral security of KRW 300 million in the face value of the claim, and the victim consented thereto (which seems not to have specified the payment period) (hereinafter “the instant apartment”). On May 30, 2012, the Defendant was using Nan apartment 1501 Dong 1501 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).