A. Error 1) Fact-finding 1) It is true that the Defendant incurred damage by borrowing KRW 600 million from C around August 2012 to the victim C (the original case 2018Dahap1153). However, there is no fact that the Defendant expressed to C that C would pay the principal within one year “or to pay the principal” that he would have planned to stop the studio in G (hereinafter referred to as “studio” in the address indication). Although the Defendant completed approximately 17 construction works at a macro city, he did not receive approximately 17 construction works, but did not pay the above loan due to the failure to recover the construction cost, etc. due to the deterioration of the shipbuilding industry and construction competition and the housing unsold situation, and there was no criminal intent or deception for the above loan. However, the victim J (the original case 2019Da443, Apr. 2, 201), who received the settlement of the construction cost from the J. 600,000 won.

In other words, the defendant and J and X couple newly built one studio on the D ground around March 2013.

Although the name of the owner was X, the defendant completed the studio building by bearing the interest of KRW 150 million in cash and KRW 350 million in the bank loan and the construction cost of KRW 760 million in the amount of KRW 50 million in the purchase cost of the land, and around September 2013, the defendant sold it to KRW 1.8 billion.

Accordingly, the J and X couple paid 960 million won from September 2013 to April 2014 the Defendant’s actual input payment to be immediately settled and returned to the Defendant (= KRW 200 million from the purchase cost of the land of KRW 150 million in cash and construction cost of KRW 760 million in cash, fees, and interest on loans).

The defendant's grounds for appeal in this part are that the defendant's grounds for appeal are asserted only through the attorney's written summary of oral argument on February 4, 2020, which was submitted after the deadline for submitting the statement

However, the defendant's assertion is considered as the reason for appeal because he or she argued the criminal intent of defraudation.