Defendant

(E)E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) has not immediately paid the construction cost due to the shortage of funds from 2007 to 2008, and has paid the unpaid construction cost due to other construction works. E has not received 2.8 billion won from a new leisure corporation, and the remainder victims have not paid the unpaid construction cost; at the time, the Defendant has paid approximately KRW 980 million personal debt borrowed from the operating fund; around October 201, the Defendant has paid the amount of more than KRW 200 million as a promissory note, and around KRW 50 million and the amount of the promissory note debt to be paid within the several months reaches KRW 50 million, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had no intent and ability to pay the construction cost to the victims; however, the judgment of the court below that acquitted each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts charged and has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The summary of each of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant against the 1st victim D with the property owned by the apartment cover amounting to KRW 600 million in total; (b) while the Defendant lent KRW 100 million in the capital around 2003 to E; (c) however, the personal debt borrowed from the company’s operating funds was KRW 980 million in excess of KRW 40 million in the card amount; (d) since from around 2007 to 2008, the Defendant was unable to immediately pay the construction price and return the unpaid construction price due to the payment of the construction price received from other construction; and (e) around October 201, the bill amount to be prevented within several months by paying the construction price as a promissorysory note with KRW 560 million in each month; and (e) even if the bill amount to be avoided due to the increase in the issuance of promissory notes, the construction contract is concluded with another company and the other company.