The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Defendant

In addition, even if the Defendant’s wife is the actual owner of the instant loan, in full view of the Defendant’s act after concluding a sales contract for the instant loan with the victim, it can be recognized that the Defendant entered into the said sales contract with the intent of acquiring the down payment from the victim from the beginning.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

In the trial court, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment as stated in the following facts charged, and this court permitted it, and thus the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Parts of innocence

1. The altered charge: (a) on October 1, 2013, the Defendant: (b) owned the victim D with “In-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 303 (hereinafter “In-gu, hereinafter “the instant loan”); (c) sold KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for existing bank loans secured by the said loan; and (d) transferred the ownership of the said loan if the remainder of KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 won,” and (e) concluded a sales contract with the victim for the instant loan (hereinafter “the instant contract”). < Amended by Act No. 11614, Oct. 31, 2013>

However, the defendant receives down payment from the victim.