Therefore, since the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on the charge of embezzlement for which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal, the judgment of this court is limited to the acquittal portion of the charge of fraud among the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is the receipt of KRW 10 million (No. 8) drawn up as of November 26, 2008, which was made by the victim as of November 26, 2008, was prepared formally as claimed by the victim I, and in fact, the victim paid KRW 20 million to the defendant, such as the victim and C’s statement.

Even if the content stated in the above receipt is true, the reason why the ownership on D 401 on March 15, 2009 (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) was not completed such as the transfer was that the Defendant did not cancel the right to collateral security established on the loan of this case. Even if the Defendant was not the actual owner of the loan of this case, he sold the loan of this case from the beginning, in light of the Defendant’s intention to complete the registration of the transfer of ownership after cancelling the right to collateral security established on the loan of this case.

may be seen.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case [the facts prior to the crime] C is expected to enforce the instant loan due to the failure of the business, while residing in the name of the wife E, which was sold on May 1, 2002, due to the failure of the business, and entered into a trust agreement with the F on June 27, 2003, and under the name of F.