In addition, the Defendants agreed to return KRW 500 million received from the complainants when the business of this case is not carried out, but did not have the intent or ability to return it in light of the financial capacity of the Defendants at the time.

Furthermore, even if a person who received money in contact with a direct complainant is Defendant B, Defendant A, through Defendant B, attempted to have a fee in contact with the executor, and thus, the relationship between the Defendants is recognized.

Notwithstanding the various circumstances consistent with the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the act of deceiving the Defendants was not sufficiently proven, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the instant facts charged on the basis of the evidence adopted by the lower court, based on the following circumstances based on the facts acknowledged by the lower court.

1) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendants’ intent and capacity to select the instant project site and the executor’s selection authority of the Defendants, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants made the instant project to select the instant project site as the Dogriday and even if the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to commission the distribution complex development project to the complainants. (A) The instant project is conducted by the KA (hereinafter “instant association”).