The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) is the land owned by the Defendant, the victim E and K, and the Defendant’s management member of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant merely called “the purport of the instant real estate,” and did not make a false statement as described in the facts charged, inasmuch as the Defendant took place a telephone with D staff member in charge of loans from a branch office located in the new bank located in the new bank around September 2012. The “Seung-gu H large 16,552 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The above remarks by the Defendant do not constitute a deceptive scheme in the crime of undermining credit, and thereby, the victim’s ability to pay or intent to pay was damaged.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the testimony of witness D without credibility is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the judgment of the court of appeal was examined, and the prosecutor stated the first sentence or second sentence of the first sentence of the indictment of this case in the appellate trial, and " Nevertheless, the defendant injured the victim's credit by spreading false facts as above," the defendant applied for the amendment of the indictment with the purport that " Nevertheless, the defendant made a false statement as above D, thereby deceiving the new bank side, such as the above D, and damaged the victim's credit by fraudulent means." Since the subject of the judgment was changed by the court's permission, the judgment of the court of first instance, which is based on the initial charges, cannot be maintained any longer.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles still remains to the extent of determining the modified facts charged.