The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The content of the Plastic book that the Defendant misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is not false, but even if false facts were to be false, the Defendant believed it as true facts, and the content of the Plastic book was added to the Plastic book for the public interest, and the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. In the case of an ex officio judgment prosecutor, two times more than the facts charged were applied for changes in the indictment with the summary of the following facts charged, and this court permitted both of them, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, the following should be examined.

B. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) It is the facts charged after the amendment of indictment was made in the first instance of the summary of the public prosecution room.

The Defendant operated the Victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) in Ulsan from July 1985, and the transaction was interrupted on the grounds of the Defendant’s failure to pay the goods around April 2008.

The Defendant, around December 3, 2015, from around January 14, 2016, around D Building in Jung-gu, Seoul and around January 14, 2016, received hot spring water for KRW 2 million from B, and received documents for termination of the establishment of the right to collateral security and received documents for termination of the right to collateral security upon receipt of the original documents. From October 23, 2015, the Defendant continued to refuse the receipt of the documents for termination of the establishment of the right to collateral security even though B provided documents for termination of the right to collateral security from around October 23, 2015.