The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim was transferred the right to collateral security established on L’s land and house in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, which was provided as collateral by himself as collateral and provided as collateral, and the defendant was transferred the right to collateral security to the defendant by paying monthly payment for the loan borrowed from Daewoo Capital, and thus the defendant was willing to repay the above loan to the victim at auction if he had transferred the right to collateral security to the victim, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged: ① Defendant and E, without any security to obtain a loan from the victim to purchase the cream for the purpose of purchasing the cream anew; ② Defendant and E, with a loan from the victim to purchase the cream on the high seas as a security, offered the cream within 2 weeks, offered the cream as a security, and released the cream from the security for the cream offered by the victim; ② a promissory note with a face value of KRW 483 million issued by I Co., Ltd. was delivered as security; ② the Defendant did not release the cream from the security of the victim; ② the Defendant demanded the victim to release the cream, and thus, the Defendant would be liable for the disadvantage of the victim due to the victim’s offering of the chill, and each of them shall be deemed to be the transfer of the e-mortgage and the e-mortgage owned by the e-mortgage owned by the victim.