The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is consistent with the E’s statement concerning the facts charged in the instant case; the Defendant, at around August 27, 201, concluded with the J (E) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant agreement”) by the agreement (hereinafter “the agreement”), which entered into with the Defendant around August 27, 2011, did not sell the said D and repay the obligation, or provide the said D as security again; the Defendant did not intend to have the Defendant’s wife as a joint guarantor.

In light of the fact that it is recognized that the defendant has the intention to commit the crime by deceit, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by mistake of fact.

2. Before making a decision on the grounds of the above appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to the effect that the facts charged were modified as “the modified facts charged” under the judgment below. Since this court permitted this, the subject of the judgment was changed, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake about the criminal intent to acquire the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is examined in the following 3.

[Revised Facts charged] The Defendant was a person who operated a DNA travel agency in Australia.

Around October 8, 2009, the Defendant entered into a monetary consumption lending contract with D and E (hereinafter “victim”) on the condition that D shall repay USD 300,000 from the victimized Company to October 9, 201, and provided the said victimized Company with its assets as security.

In the meantime, the Defendant was at the risk of not being renewed the registration license of D due to the above debt and provision of collateral by D Co., Ltd., and on July 2011.