Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge this, and in so determining, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Defendant promised to allow F to implement a remodeling project for E hotel around April 30, 2007 and received KRW 100 million from F; (b) however, in light of the following circumstances (i) the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant did not have the ability to repay even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim on April 30, 2007, and did not have the ability to allow the victim to implement a remodeling project for E hotel; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

① From around 2003, the Defendant served as an adviser at the E hotel operated by H, a private village pilot, and around March 2007, I accepted the E hotel from H, which mainly remains in Seoul and had no experience in operating the hotel at that time, and requested the Defendant, who was involved in the operation of the E hotel, to delegate the overall hotel business and to promote remodeling work by checking investors and selecting a public corporation. Ultimately, the Defendant cannot be viewed as having given F the right to execute the E hotel remodeling work.

(2) Although the defendant was from F to his own G account under the name of G, 100 million won.