The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that, at the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the victim F, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) operated by the Defendant borrowed money from the victim F, the Defendant committed a claim for service costs of KRW 1 billion against D Apartment Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter “instant association”) and in addition, there was a claim for service costs, etc. under each service contract between M M Housing Reconstruction Promotion Committee and L Apartment Emergency Countermeasure Committee, and the Defendant promised to pay the loan amount of KRW 317 million from the instant association, but the Defendant did not pay the loan amount of KRW 37 million, the reason why the Defendant promised to pay the above loan amount to the victim when receiving the service cost from the instant association is not the fact that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the loan amount from the beginning, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. First of all, we examine the argument of mistake of facts.

A. On March 2004, the Defendant, as the representative director of C, and around March 2004, entered into a “a service contract (a provisional contract)” with the content that C is paid KRW 1 billion in service cost by performing certain services between E and the representative.

However, the above "a service contract" is scheduled to be prepared again after the general meeting of the union members without going through the approval of the general meeting of the union members, and its validity is not clear. Thus, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim F from the victim F, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to receive the above service payment and pay it. However, around December 18, 2006, it is necessary to pay the funds to the victim in the C office located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G to reconvert H commercial buildings.

The association of this case receives 1 billion won for reconstruction services from the association of this case, and 3.