Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant's husband, who is the husband of the court below, testified by J.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to defend the victims at the time of borrowing money from the victims:

It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money after borrowing money.

Even if this constitutes a non-performance of civil liability, it should be considered as a non-performance of civil liability, and immediately judged that criminal fraud is not established.

① The Defendant, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, made a statement to the effect that he borrowed money from the victims and used it as the husband’s business fund.

② The husband J of the Defendant used the money from the Defendant in the original trial as business funds.

was stated.

Defendant

In light of the fact that there are many details of money deposited from the bank account in the name of J to the deposit account in the name of J, there is no circumstance that the defendant deceivings victims about the use of the money borrowed.

③ The J seems to have closed its business in 2007, and opened its business from around 2007 to around 201, on the garment Sclicker, China as a single gar, and at least until around 2011.

J stated to the effect that the court below had been under a heart surgery on June 2013 at the court below's trial, and did not work until now.

④ Meanwhile, around 2006, the Defendant owned an apartment with a market price of KRW 500 million, and the maximum amount of the claim regarding the above apartment is KRW 332.8 million.