At the time of borrowing KRW 30 million from the victim, the Defendants did not have any particular property, and the instant company was also in the state of hostile expenditure and operating expenses without sales.

Although the Defendants planned to pay the above money through the inducement of foreign capital, the parties to each investment contract dated 1, 2016 on the inducement of foreign capital confirm that Defendant A, not the instant company, is a P Co., Ltd., a joint representative P Co., Ltd., and the content of the contract had the intent and ability to invest USD 500,000,000.

Although the Defendants were able to receive KRW 500 million from H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”), service charges may have to be fulfilled by the service contract, and thus, the amount could not be received until the maturity of the instant loan was due.

Judgment

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court below, the only evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the victim would repay 30 million won to the Defendants within two months at the latest.

In conclusion, the lower court’s conclusion that the Defendant was not guilty is justifiable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s argument cannot be accepted.

Defendant

B received delegation from H of the authority to select a sales agency of the main complex building, which is scheduled to be newly built in the I Center of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and if we lend KRW 30,000,000 to 30,000.