The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) ① The defendant, along with the land owned by the defendant, was aware of the fact that the penty building owned by the victim was provided as a joint collateral with the land owned by the defendant, and thus, the victim's implied consent was obtained. ② The defendant thought that the victim was aware of the fact that the building was provided as a joint collateral, and determined that no damage was inflicted on the victim, and thus the defendant provided the building as a joint collateral, so illegal acquisition intention is not recognized.

2. The judgment of the court below is accepted as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the defendant was investigated by the prosecutor, and there is no clear consent from the victim (to provide the victim's building as a joint collateral). However, since it is inevitable to conduct a joint project, the defendant was provided with the loan because it is inevitable to do so, and in this case, the bank was trying to provide a joint collateral only to the original land, and it is inevitably required to provide a joint collateral to the victim's wife, and there is only two talks about the victim's wife F, and I would like to talk about each other as a matter of course (Evidence records 259, 260 pages), and (ii) the defendant visited the victim's wife by visiting the pent owned by the victim with the appraiser to make a loan to the victim's wife, and thus, the defendant agreed to the loan by opening the loan to the Financial Security.

Although it is argued as ", F has changed the door because it had been evaluated as "the defendant at the time".