In conclusion, it does not affect the recognition of the facts charged in this case as long as the defendant had a debt of 1.6 billion won to the victim in relation to the F business (in conclusion, the investigation record 2288 pages) rather than the contents contained in the facts charged, as alleged by the defendant.

Since it shows, I do not make any judgment.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the Defendant did not deceiving the Victim G and had the intent or ability to promote I General Industrial Complex Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”).

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendant, through a contract for vicarious implementation of the instant project with J, entered into an agency contract with the president of the partnership (hereinafter “the instant partnership”) that has promoted the instant project, and to distribute the proceeds of the instant project accrued after the authorization was granted, after investing in the expenses incurred in granting the authorization for the said project. After that, the Defendant merely received an investment from the victims by informing the victims of all the above circumstances and did not acquire the money from the victims under the pretext that the Defendant acquired the right to operate the said association or the right to implement the said association.

The project of this case is conducted in the manner of land owners association due to the re-promotion of the project of this case as a private developer and the death of the J himself around November 2010.