The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant received KRW 25 million from I and received the bill discount from her husband F upon request by her husband F to deposit part of the bill discount amount received by I, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant had not deceiving I and acquired the above money, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who has operated G with her husband F with her husband F.

1. The Defendant committed the crime of August 8, 2008, on or around August 8, 2008, made a false statement to the victim I in the gas charging station operated by Sejong-si G located in H, Sejong-si, stating that “A person shall pay back within one week if he/she individually lends 15 million won to the victim I.”

However, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 15 million from the victim as a loan to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant on the same day.

2. Around September 8, 2008, the Defendant committed the crime of September 8, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim at the pertinent G Office stating, “A full payment shall be made within one week, along with the borrowed money, prior to lending 10 million won to the victim, because he/she was immediately used in his/her own country.”

However, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the said Defendant on the same day.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

(1) The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there is no credibility of the statement by reason of the difference between I’s police investigation and prosecutor’s investigation. However, F, the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband, reversed the statement in relation to issuance and discount of bills during the investigation process, and there is money transaction between I and F.