The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is sufficiently recognized by the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, that he/she was willing to obtain a PMF loan by emphasizing his/her personality and re-performance of the PMF service contract, even though he/she did not have an intent or ability to properly implement

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly examined by the court below, the defendant, the representative director of B, entered into each PM service contract for the following businesses in the name of B, and received total of KRW 283 million as a check or transferred to B’s account as a down payment, etc.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) determined that, on September 9, 2015, the date of receipt of the contract to the other party to the agreement to enter into a housing redevelopment project agreement 2017da5235 G housing redevelopment project in the name of the other party to the agreement; (b) the Defendant did not receive money from the other party to the agreement by deceiving the victims under his/her intention or ability to perform the PM service agreement, and did not receive money from the victims by deception, etc., and did not receive the said contract deposit by deception, etc., for the said victims, even though he/she did not have any intention or ability to perform the PM service agreement.

However, in light of the circumstances revealed by the court below’s reasoning, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone exceeds the aforementioned doubt, and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to perform the PE service contract properly.