In light of the fact that the defendant, instead, received the money from the injured party under the same name as stated in the facts charged, used the money received from the injured party differently from the purpose of notifying the injured party, and stated that there is no property on the other hand at the time when he received the money. The franchise contract of this case is merely a virtual proposal unilaterally prepared by the defendant and the injured party, but it is difficult to determine the deception based on the above document. The investment agreement with the content that the defendant and the injured party jointly operates the principal office is concluded after the defendant paid the money for other purposes. In light of the fact that the agreement with the content that the defendant and the injured party jointly operates the principal office around February 4, 2014, it is sufficient to recognize the defendant's deception and the criminal intent of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a verdict of innocence against the defendant. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On November 2013, 2013, the Defendant extended funds necessary for the completion of the interior works at the victim C’s place where the Defendant was not a policeman in the middle of November 2013.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money, since it was thought that the Defendant would use it as rent and salary for a multi-level company operated by the Defendant even after receiving the money from the injured party.

Around November 22, 2013, the Defendant acquired money from the injured party by remittance of KRW 10 million under the name of the Nong Bank account (Account Number: E) in the name of D, from November 22, 2013.

B. On November 201, 2013, the Defendant was at a place where the horse is influence.