Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not have any other property and was in bad credit standing, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay money from the victim E even if he borrowed money.

Nevertheless, around July 2012, the Defendant: “Around the end of July, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 107,617,807 to repay to F within one month,” and the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 107,617,807 from the injured party on July 31, 2012.

3. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case was that the prosecutor entered into a verbal contract to borrow KRW 107,617,807 from E without the Defendant’s intent or ability to repay, and accordingly received the said money.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the defendant, who is a member of the D church, has transferred the amount of the money collected from E to F immediately after he received the remittance of the amount of the money collected from E in order to form the appearance of the D church, such as the repayment of the money by the D church to F, the creditor, according to seizure and collection order.

Ultimately, the issue of this case is whether the defendant borrowed the above money from E, such as the facts charged.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts: ① G Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G General Construction”) performed the new construction of the I church on the H land at the Y in the 2011 following the following: (a) subcontracted the stone construction portion to the company F (hereinafter “F”) and completed the new construction work; (b) G Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G General Construction”).