The judgment below

Part of conviction (including part of compensation order) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

In this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s reasoning, contradiction, or lack of reasoning. (1) The lower court’s judgment on November 20, 2007, among the facts constituting the crime, is K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”).

3) As to the right to collateral security established against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”)

The real estate, which was the object of this Act, was “10 lots of real estate, such as Asan City L,” but facts constituting a crime No. 2

C. (1) Under paragraph (1), the Defendant’s statement of “land located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu” that is not included in “10 lots of real estate, such as Asan City L, etc.” on real estate, which was the object of the right to collateral security established by the Defendant to K on the same day, is erroneous in the misapprehension of reason

② Under the criminal facts of the lower judgment, the Defendant’s obligation to BE was indicated as KRW 4.9 million, but the criminal facts of the crime No. 2

C. (1) Since paragraph (1) stated that it is KRW 475 million, there is an error of reason, contradiction or lack of reason.

2) Since there was no fact that the Defendant, related to whether to prepare a misunderstanding of facts) a written statement of performance, as of March 10, 2009, prepared a written statement of performance (hereinafter “written statement of performance of this case”), Articles 1 and 2-1 of the facts constituting the crime of the original judgment on the premise that the Defendant prepared the above written statement of performance.

(a)(2), (3), and 2-b);

Paragraphs 2 and 2

C. In finding each guilty of paragraph (2), the error affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B) Fraud against the victim G (the crime No. 2 of the original judgment)

C. (2) The pertinent Defendant is the Defendant’s land 8,940 square meters (hereinafter “BG land”) on three lots, including ASEAN-si BG owned by the Defendant.

The Defendant knew that he would be above two billion won and thought that even if he deducts the Defendant’s obligation with respect to AZ, he would be able to receive a dividend of at least 500 million won. In other words, 210 million won, which should be granted to G, may be returned without problem. In other words, the Defendant did not intend to obtain money from the victim. (C)