Therefore, in determining whether the defendant deceivings the victims, the defendant's wife population N et al. and 15 parcels (15 parcels) are "the land of this case," "N," "O, and "the land of this case," and "the entire response of this case," as shown in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, not only whether the purchaser was in the position of the victim, but also whether the victims could acquire the ownership of the land of this case and repay the borrowed amount to the victims if borrowed KRW 8 billion from the victims.

The court below concluded that the defendant had the ability to repay solely because he had the right to the land of this case. There was an error of omission of judgment on the key issues.

Furthermore, the evidence revealed in the record reveals: (a) the Defendant was unable to win the instant land in civil litigation due to the lack of the right to the instant land; and (b) even if there was a right to the instant land, the Defendant could not secure the ownership of the instant land solely with KRW 8 billion borrowed from the victims; and (c) the portion of the “stock company” in the name of another company is omitted.

(4) It can be recognized that the borrowed money has not been used for the purpose notified to the victims.

In full view of this, even though the defendant could be recognized that he deceptioned the victims and stolen 8 billion won, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby acquitted the defendant.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged, including the facts charged and the summary of the judgment of the court below, is the case.