All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles), I (hereinafter “I”) borrowed the instant money from the victim N (hereinafter “victim”) around January 2009, there were various circumstances that had already been difficult due to the company’s financial situation since then, and the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Land Trust”) notified I of its intention to refuse to guarantee the second intermediate payment and recognized that it cannot be repaid to the victim, even after the above notification, the Defendants borrowed KRW 785 million from the victim. In light of the fact that the Defendants, while offering a promissory note as collateral, could be seen as a genuine bill of exchange and deceiving the victim by abusing endorsement of endorsement of prospective customers, the Defendants could recognize the fact that they acquired the money from the victim as a means of borrowing money, without hiding the company’s financial situation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted each of the Defendants is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is Defendant B’s representative director, and Defendant A is a person who has worked as a managing director in charge of funds of I.

I established a civil engineering project on September 192 as its main business purpose and added housing construction and housing supply business on April 200 to its business purpose, and developed a stable growth through housing construction until 2005. In that process, Seongbuk-gu Seoul JJ purchased a site and promote new apartment construction and sales business (hereinafter “instant K business”). However, due to the land owners who display the so-called “almbling” behavior, I paid financial costs for the purchase of land exceeding KRW 10 billion.

Since September 2008, the defendants had been placed in the domestic real estate subscription market due to the depression of the U.S. financial crisis.