The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles have made the defendant lend 20 million won to the defendant, the defendant did not report false facts, and there was no such fact as household affairs.

Even if the defendant's intention of accusation is not recognized, the defendant's intention cannot be recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

① Only the title of the registration of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security is the mere collateral security for a specific claim arising from the one-time transaction relationship. However, the reasoning of the judgment in the Changwon District Court 2015 High Order 529 decided on March 1, 201 seems to have been erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which led

A. Despite the completion of November 6, 2007, the Defendant brought an action against the victim seeking the cancellation of the registration of the instant right to collateral security.

② Other real estate owned by the Defendant was sold at a voluntary auction in 2009 due to the aggravation of the Defendant’s economic situation. If there was no secured obligation against the registration of creation of the instant right to collateral security, it appears that the registration of creation of the instant right to collateral security was cancelled in order to prevent other real estate owned by the Defendant from being sold at a voluntary auction, and that the bank was given loans.

③ In addition, the Defendant’s assertion that the right to collateral security was completed from the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security before receiving the money from the injured party without the agreement on due date or interest is difficult to accept.

(4) The husband E of the defendant shall be the other obligees in the prosecution.