The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor examined the name of the crime in breach of trust in relation to the facts charged in breach of trust as “Obstruction of Exercise of Rights” from “Article 355(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act,” and “Article 323 of the Criminal Act” from “Article 35(2) to “Article 323 of the Criminal Act,” and “a reason for the judgment in which the facts charged are used” under the charges, “a summary of the facts and evidence” were changed to the same contents as “a summary of the facts and evidence”. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, and the remaining facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the court below, 【The facts constituting a crime and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court below 】 The summary of the facts constituting a crime and the summary of the evidence are as follows: Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below except for those stated in "1. The defendant’s court statement" in the summary of the evidence as "1. The defendant’s court statement" in "1. The defendant's court statement in the judgment of the court below and the court of the trial of the court of the court of the court of the court below", and thus, it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below.

3. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant borrowed 45 million won from the Victim L through K, a representative in the name of the instant company, from the J law Firm Office located in Sung-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si. In this case, the Defendant borrowed 45 million won from the instant company.