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. The facts charged in this case

A. The charge of fraud (the selective charge 1) is the original charge, and [the selective charge 2] is the charge added orally at the court during the fifth trial of the lower court.

[Selective charges 1] The defendant is the chairperson of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Committee for Promotion of Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project.

On February 11, 2010, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the representative director H in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan E building (hereinafter referred to as “G”) and borrowed KRW 20 million from H to the victim F. The Defendant stated that “I would not have any evidence that he/she received money from the company, who is the head of the promotion committee and the head of the promotion committee, and would be well aware of the fact that he/she would be able to receive KRW 100 million from G in lieu of the loan certificate, and would be able to receive KRW 100 million from G in lieu of the loan certificate.” As the victim F., the Defendant prepared the loan certificate and borrowed KRW 20 million from H.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million and instead demanded the victim to prepare a loan certificate on behalf of the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to repay the money borrowed to H.

Accordingly, the Defendant received delivery of KRW 20 million by deceiving the victim, thereby making the victim prepare a loan certificate instead, and making the victim subrogated for the victim.

[Selective Facts 2] The defendant is the chairperson of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Committee for Promotion of Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project.

On February 11, 2010, the Defendant issued a loan certificate to the victim F in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan E building, stating that “I would not have any evidence that I would have received money from the company as the Bank Chairperson was the Bank Chairperson, and I would like to settle it well by recognizing that I would have to receive KRW 100 million from G in lieu of the loan certificate. I would like to find out that I would be able to receive KRW 100 million from G in lieu of the loan certificate,” and borrowed KRW 20 million from H by the G representative director.

However, the facts are that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from H, and even if having the victim prepare a loan certificate on behalf of the victim, H.