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 summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. Since the Defendant provided sufficient security at the time of borrowing KRW 100 million from the victim, the Defendant had the intent to repay and the ability to repay, and had no intention to defraudation.

Nevertheless, since the court below convicted the facts charged of this case, it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Even if the court below found the defendant guilty of unfair sentencing, the punishment imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

A. On September 26, 2013, the summary of the facts charged was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court). On December 12, 2013, the judgment became final and conclusive.

Around May 20, 2011, the Defendant displayed the truth to the victim C and the victim D, and made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would lend KRW 100,000,000 to the E Museum, which is expected to be delivered only one of the Republic of Korea, and then would return the fact to the E Museum, which would be KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.”

However, it is true that the defendant offered as security is valuable, and there was no particular property at the time, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay it as the promise.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million as a check from the victim on the same day.

B. The lower court found the facts charged and found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the evidence indicated in its judgment.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. If the relevant legal doctrine provides a sufficient security with a loan from a third party, barring any special circumstance, the said loan cannot be deemed as having no intent and ability to repay the loan, barring special circumstances.

Supreme Court Decision 84Do231 Decided March 27, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1465 Decided May 28, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1465 Decided May 28, 2004.