Meanwhile, the witness G of the lower court presented to the investigative agency a statement that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 35 million from D for business purposes, and the loan certificate was prepared upon the Defendant’s request by the victim.” However, the lower court testified to the effect that the above statement is a false statement prepared upon the victim’s request.

As above, although the testimony of D and G is completely inconsistent with the testimony of the investigative agency without any special reason, and the above witness's statement in the investigative agency is more reliable, the court below granted credibility only to the testimony of D and G, and the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds of this, there is an error of law by misapprehending the facts.

2. On November 201, 201, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim, a social ship, who was a member of the society, to the effect that “I cannot use the passbook because he was delinquent and bad credit; (b) borrowed money from his account; and (c) received KRW 35 million from a person related to internal affairs to the Agricultural Cooperative (E) account in the name of the victim on November 11, 201.

On November 14, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim’s office located in F in Gyeonggi-si, 201, stating that “The victim would be liable for all the face-to-face loan payments in the name of the victim who would be repaid to D in the amount of KRW 35 million, and the victim would be liable for all the face-to-face loan payments.”

However, in fact, the defendant is in a bad credit position, and there is little property to lend money from the victim.