The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In relation to the primary investment agreement of mistake of facts, the defendant did not mean that "the defendant will receive a PF loan and repay the principal amount of KRW 500 million and KRW 285 million to the victim at the time of the primary investment agreement."

(2) At the time of the first investment agreement, the defendant has no means to believe that he/she will issue a certificate of preferential right to benefit to the victim.

On January 10, 2019, the Defendant asserted that, in the summary of the pleadings, the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, “In order for the Defendant to receive the PF loans from the victim, pay the agreed amount and the final profit, and by deceiving the victim to issue the second priority right certificate to secure the payment of the agreed amount and the final profit, it may be recognized that the Defendant defrauded the victim KRW 1 billion in total of the investment money pursuant to the 1 and the second investment agreement.” However, in the event of the delivery of the investment money pursuant to the first investment agreement, there was no agreement to issue the priority right certificate, and the victim is also recognized, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

Since the Defendant asserted to the same effect in the statement of grounds for appeal, it shall be deemed one of the grounds for appeal.

③ Even if the Defendant said at the time of the primary investment agreement that the Defendant would receive a PF loan from the victim and would proceed with the business, the Defendant did not make a false statement to the victim since the Defendant was sufficiently able to cover the equity capital (20% of the total project cost) under the conditions of the PF loan.

This is because the defendant's failure to obtain a PE loan does not meet the lending conditions of the PE loan (RF bank, etc.) and changes the lending method to a secured loan (WA).

In relation to the second investment agreement, the Defendant did not say at the time of the second investment agreement that “The Defendant would receive the PF loan and repay the principal amount of KRW 500 million and the final revenue of KRW 300 million,” and the victim would not receive the PF loan at the time of the second investment agreement.