The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court), the Defendant was planned to borrow money as collateral and construct the old building removal and loan of Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter “H”) in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “C”), but the Defendant did not intend to remove and newly construct H as collateral on the land when the victim requested repayment to repay all loans that the maturity date has not yet arrived. Since the Defendant did not cancel the registration of collateral price established on the land C, the removal and new construction of H did not occur, and the Defendant did not intend to acquire the money.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the Defendant’s assertion of the same grounds for appeal of this case. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion and its decision.

The reasoning of the lower judgment is as follows: (a) the Defendant used the remainder of KRW 200,000,000 borrowed from the victim company as H’s construction cost, i.e., the remainder of KRW 345,500,000,000, excluding KRW 2000,000,000, as the land purchase price, but actually used for C’s construction cost or personal use; (b) the Defendant asserted that the Defendant failed to receive the loan because the victim company did not cancel the provisional registration for security as set forth in C, but the C Corporation and H Corporation, in which the Defendant continued, was a construction for a different project, and due to the delay in the loan secured by C.