There are many parts of the statements made by the victims or other believers against objective evidence, such as each of the instant loans, account details, and the message content between the Defendant and the victim’s spouse, which are reversed or contradictory to the statements.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The judgment of the court below also has the same assertion in the court below, but the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds that in light of the following facts: (a) the statement made by the victim about the process of lending money to the defendant is consistent; (b) the payment of interest on the business loan borne by the victim in order to raise the loan; (c) the victim's husband and wife appears to have been trusted in the defendant; and (d) the victim's statement about the time when the business loan was recognized or the circumstance when the business loan was recognized or when the victim's statement was considered to be contradictory, it is difficult to believe that the settlement amount of the amount that the defendant lent to the victim's spouse was increased to KRW 45 million; (d) the loan was extended to KRW 50 million; and (e) the loan certificate related thereto appears to have been made falsely; and (iii) the victim's debt to the defendant cannot be deemed to have been acquired by the F, the defendant's statement in this case is not admissible.

B. We examine the above judgment of the court below with the record and closely comparison.