A. The Defendants had been bad credit holders at the time of borrowing money from the injured party, and E did not have any sales, and the production and sales of G via the above company also ordered whether they had sexual intercourse.

B. In order to continue the business, the Defendants need to pay more than KRW 200 million.

The Defendants intended to operate a business by borrowing funds or receiving investments through H with the absence of business funds at the time.

(c)

Nevertheless, as the Defendants borrowed money from the injured party by stating that there was a sale or an investment fund, the Defendants had the intent to acquire money from the injured party.

2. Determination

A. The court below found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the victim’s statement that the Defendants did not know the progress of the business that the Defendants continued and the Defendants did not know the credibility of the victim’s statement, that the Defendants remitted the money borrowed from the injured party to the United States as the import price for G raw materials, and that the Defendants endeavored to develop the product and the store, but the contract was not performed properly, but did not make profits or losses.

B. In a case where the appellate court intends to re-examine the first deliberation decision and ex post facto determine the existence of objective grounds that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, there are reasonable circumstances to deem that the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first deliberation should not be reversed without permission.