2. (i) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the name of KRW 15 million paid by the Defendant to the victim on September 16, 2009, the fact that the said KRW 15 million is not the name of the loan but the name of the construction cost may be fully recognized.

① The victim stated that “the Defendant loaned KRW 20 million to offer his own land as security and asked so that the Defendant lent KRW 20 million after having prepared a real estate transaction contract from the Defendant.” As to KRW 15 million received from the Defendant, the victim received the amount of KRW 15 million from the Defendant that “the Defendant was not repaid, but the civil engineering business operator H performed the civil engineering works on the Defendant’s site. However, the Defendant received the sum of KRW 10 million that the Defendant paid to H as civil construction expenses and KRW 5 million that the Defendant paid to H as civil construction expenses on behalf of the Defendant.

“A consistent statement”, and H also made a statement in conformity with the lower court’s court.

② On the other hand, on August 18, 2015, the Defendant stated to the police that “No money has been lent to the victim, and the victim would have sold the land to the victim to obtain profit from market price, thereby obtaining KRW 20 million as down payment.” On September 1, 2015, the Defendant sent a certification of the above purport to the victim and H. On the other hand, on the basis of the I’s statement that “the police would incur fraud from the Defendant before the date of lending the victim.” On the other hand, the Defendant was examined on the basis of the Defendant’s statement that “the victim was lent KRW 20 million to the victim at that time and received KRW 20 million as down payment.”