The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) around March 18, 2004, the defendant, as the representative director of C (hereinafter "C"), entered into a provisional contract (a) with the representative E of D apartment reconstruction project association, stating that C will perform a certain service and receive KRW 1 billion from the service cost. However, the service contract (a provisional contract) did not go through the general meeting of the union members in the said reconstruction project association (hereinafter "the said reconstruction project association") and is scheduled to re-establish it after the general meeting of the union members; and (b) there was no intent or ability to repay the borrowed money with the service cost even if it is not certain that it would not take effect after the general meeting of the union members; (c) the defendant borrowed money from the victim F; (d) the victim would have to receive KRW 100,000 from the association and receive KRW 30,000,000,000 from the victim; and (e) the victim would have received 270,000,00,000 won from the association.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that he did not have the intention of deception because he had the intent to repay and had the ability to repay as follows at the time of borrowing the instant loan.

① A. A. A. B. had a claim for service costs of KRW 1 billion against the instant association, but E., elected as the president of the instant association, following a resolution by the general meeting of its members.