All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s payment in D (hereinafter “D”) is below KRW 1.5 million per month, and at the time when the Defendant borrowed KRW 33 million from the Victim F from the Victim F, the Defendant did not have any benefits to be settled from D, and the Defendant did not have any ability or intent to repay the borrowed amount to the victim due to credit card payment liability, etc., the lower court rejected the Defendant’s statement, etc. with credibility and acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. The Defendant (the first instance judgment against the lower court’s judgment)’s punishment (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. The Defendant in this part of the facts charged is a person who served as a representative director of D, a company related to redevelopment and reconstruction.

On November 2014, the Defendant is in charge of providing advisory services and performing duties on behalf of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Housing Redevelopment Project Association at the victim F office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the date of November 2014, and the improvement project will be completed and the construction will proceed.

In order to continue work from time to time with members, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 33 million from April 2015 to borrow money, thereby making profits from G redevelopment from April 2015 to the late time, thereby making a false statement.

However, the Defendant did not have any money to be settled from D, which is a company related to G redevelopment, and even if he/she borrowed money from the damaged party due to no particular profit in addition to the credit card use amount of KRW 6 million, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money from April 2015 as agreed.

On November 28, 2014, the Defendant received cash of KRW 33 million from the injured party on the pretext of the borrowed money from the above office.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant is the representative director D from May 2012.