Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this case at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in its judgment on the grounds of the Defendant’s assertion and its decision under the title “Determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel”

B. On the grounds of the judgment of the court below, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. ① The defendant complained against the defendant with respect to the fact that the victim acquired 150 million won as investment funds for development activities E. The above 150 million won, excluding the above 62.5 million won as stated in the court below's decision, and the prosecutor of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office did not take a non-prosecution disposition with respect to the remaining 87.5 million won. The prosecutor's above non-prosecution disposition was based on the judgment that the defendant decided to change the name of the defendant's existing obligation to return other investment funds to E, and the defendant did not borrow 300 million won as the husband of the victim's her husband, and the defendant did not borrow 87.5 million won as the principal and did not repay 150 million won from the victim's her husband and did not repay her interest for the year 200,000.