However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that: (a) at the time of being tried in around 2012 as the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the investors who introduced B did not reach an agreement; (b) the Defendant demanded the return of KRW 160 million to E (the Defendant 40 million and KRW 200 million) in which the loan certificate was prepared on the same day as F and G (the Defendant received KRW 40 million) and (c) in light of the above circumstances, the Defendant appears to have sufficiently known the fact that he prepared the loan certificate at the request of B; and (d) Nevertheless, the Defendant was found guilty on the ground that he made a conclusive answer to the question of B’s defense counsel on a conclusive basis.

B. Further to the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant testified that he/she testified at the time of the examination of witness on June 10, 2014.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case does not err by misapprehending the legal principles.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(1) The defendant asserts that no one has made an investment encouragement by preparing a loan certificate and promising to guarantee the principal.

In this regard, examining each loan certificate, details of the payment of investment funds, etc. on the record, the defendant on November 4, 201, E, F.