However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the following grounds in the part below “a summary of evidence” in its judgment.

(1) A victim may borrow a loan by issuing trust securities on the face of the defendant and D 60 million won.

On the other hand, the Defendant and D also knew that at the time of receiving the money, the victim did not acquire the ownership of the site subject to the PF loan. If the acquisition of the ownership of the site was a prerequisite for the instant loan, it is consistent with the purport that the Defendant would receive the said money from the injured party by being aware of the impossibility of the instant loan, even though it was not equipped with the premise.

② The victim stated that the Defendant, etc. did not have any explanation on the premise of the loan, such as acquisition of ownership of the relevant site.

③ As the Defendant asserts, if the instant loan was a PF loan, and it was an important premise for the victim to acquire ownership of the site in order to implement the loan, and this was required to meet the victim’s own, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant paid a larger amount of KRW 60 million to receive only the letter of intent for the loan, since the important part of the instant loan-related business was to be handled by the victim himself/herself.