The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant, in think of the use of the existing shopping mall’s closed-down cost, by deceiving the victim E without any intent or ability to repay, and defrauded it by borrowing KRW 30 million from the damaged person for the purpose of operating the shopping mall to start a new business; (b) the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the mistake of the fact or by

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, along with C, who was an artist and became aware of the records of the instant case, operated the Internet shopping mall “D” with C, which is an artist, and there is a lot of relationship with the victims E and other surrounding persons, including F and G entertainers.

It has been discussed.

On February 2, 2011, the Defendant retired from the Defendant’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Police Officer to operate “F and new Internet shopping mall I” at the victim E’s office.

A loan of KRW 30 million with the operating fund of the shopping mall may be extended to only KRW 30 million. After one year, the principal shall be repaid and 5% of the shares of the shopping mall shall also be paid.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, the Defendant was expected to use the Internet shopping mall operated by the Defendant as personnel expenses and taxes while lending money from the damaged party, and the Defendant did not have any equity interest as an employee of “I” and did not have any intent or ability to repay the same even if he/she borrowed money from the damaged party, such as having no property.

On February 18, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was transferred KRW 30 million to a new bank account in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Defendant for the purpose of borrowing money from the damaged party.

3. The lower court determined as follows: (1) In relation to whether the Defendant was scheduled to use KRW 30 million granted by the injured party for the closure of “D” Internet shopping mall, which was already operated by the injured party; and (2) whether the Defendant belonged to the victim’s use.