The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, H and I’s respective statements, details of passbook transactions, etc., the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants on the charges of mistake of facts, even though it is clearly proved that they had no intent and ability to carry out construction at the time of borrowing money from the Defendants A and Defendant A.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found Defendant A not guilty on the grounds of the following facts found.

1) Defendant A lent KRW 20 million to himself/herself from the police stage to the court below’s decision and directly talked with Defendant A.

Defendant A merely stated that I and Defendant B lent KRW 20 million, but Defendant A did not mention the amount directly.

There is no consistent statement as to what is the deception of Defendant A, such as the statement.

2) The Defendants, H, and K consistently leased “20 million won” to H at the time, place, and place indicated in the instant facts charged, and there was an outside of the office in which the Defendants, H, and K did not make a speech.

was stated.

3) On April 12, 2011, I received the remittance of KRW 10 million from H, and thereafter, remitted the said money to the account of Defendant A’s husband’s husband’s husband under the direction of Defendant B.

4) H received KRW 20 million from I as a commission for the introduction of construction works in relation to KRW 20 million.

Although the receipt of cash receipt was issued, Defendant A did not require the preparation, etc. of a separate loan receipt.

In addition to the circumstances described in the reasoning of the lower judgment, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) H was relatively consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the lower trial;

It is aware that the request from I to lend KRW 20 million to I for the construction of an officetel, and that 10 million out of KRW 20 million delivered to I is delivered to A.