The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts as to the acquittal portion), although the court below acquitted the victim Q Q with a sum of KRW 250 million as the loan borrowed from the above victim, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
A. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of G Co., Ltd.
1) On November 25, 2012, the Defendant was aware of “I real estate” located in H in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.
J is a business that purchases and resells K apartment in Gangwon-do (hereinafter referred to as "the sale business of this case") with a "Sweak-gun's apartment in order to cover it," and there is a person who lends money.
If you lend KRW 200 million to the other party, you will pay KRW 300 million up to June 2, 2013.
The registration of the transfer of ownership of the same apartment 104, 706, 806, 905, and 906 (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage apartment of this case") shall be made at the time of default.
“Around December 4, 2012, J transferred KRW 200,000 to the account (hereinafter “National Bank”) under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “National Bank”) to the victim Q Q, who was known to the general public, by telephone, and around December 10, 2012, the said victim transferred KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant, through J, around December 10, 2012, prepared four copies of the loan certificate 1 and the above apartment sales contract 70,000,000 won for the above apartment bonds and the above apartment bonds 4.
However, even if the defendant received money from the above victim, he did not have the intention or ability to repay the money until June 2, 2013, and there was no intention to transfer the ownership of the above apartment to the above victim.
2) On April 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) from the “I Real Estate” as above, the payment date for the remainder of K apartment purchased by J to J is different; and (b) the Defendant was found to have lent money to money.