A. Despite the fact that the Defendant, on May 2009, acquired two copies of a promissory note with face value of 25 million won from the injured party by stating that “the Defendant would receive a discount on the face of a bill at the face of the face value,” the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. On April 23, 2010, the Defendant borrowed 50 million won from the damaged person and acquired it through deception despite the absence of the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money on or around April 23, 2010, and the lower court acquitted this part of the charges. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending

2. Determination as to the fraud of a policeman on May 2009

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant did not refund KRW 50 million to the present time even after receiving two promissory notes with face value of KRW 25 million from the person who was injured in the middle of May 2009.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances as stated by the lower court (see Article 2-2(1) of the judgment of the lower court), the Defendant would accept at a discount two copies of the above promissory notes from the victim.

false facts have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the prosecutor's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

① At the court of the court below, the victim requested the defendant to discount two copies of the above Promissory Notes as the business funds are urgently needed on May 2009, and the victim would receive a discount from the defendant, not from another person.

“Statement” is made to the effect that “.”

However, if the funds of the business fund are urgently required as the victim's statement, and the request for discount was made, the payment of the discounted amount could be made at the same time as the issuance of a promissory note. If the defendant's delivery of a promissory note and the payment of the discounted amount was not possible, the victim shall be another person.