The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Grounds for appeal (the factual error and the unreasonable sentencing)

A. At the time of establishment of the right to collateral security concerning land C and F (hereinafter “instant land”), the victim did not have a claim amounting to KRW 50 million equivalent to the maximum debt amount at the time of cancellation of the right to collateral security, and the Defendant paid KRW 60 million in return for cancellation of the right to collateral security even though the actual debt was not KRW 60 million at the time of cancellation of the right to collateral security. Accordingly, the Defendant did not complete settlement between the Defendant and the victim, and there was a person having the ability to repay and intent to repay at the time of cancellation of the right to collateral security.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as being guilty of fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, even if the Defendant did not reach KRW 80 million at the time of cancellation of the right to collateral security and had the Defendant sufficient means to repay KRW 60 million to the Defendant, in light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found that the Defendant did not intend to repay KRW 60 million even if the Defendant had cancelled the right to collateral security, or set up the right to collateral security with the second priority for the building to be newly constructed on the instant land. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of this part

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be accepted since there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant.

1) According to the Defendant’s statement (Evidence Nos. 9, 11) in the Defendant’s investigative agency (Evidence No. 9, 11), each statement (Evidence No. 21) prepared by the Defendant (Evidence No. 21) and each statement of No. notarial deeds (Evidence No. 23, Evidence No. 23, etc.), the Defendant recognized that the Defendant’s obligation remains at the time of requesting cancellation of the right to collateral