The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the owner of Jinjin-si C (hereinafter “instant loan”) and had the intent and ability to move in by leasing the instant loan to the victim, and there was no dispute over the ownership at the time stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant, around May 28, 2012, paid KRW 35 million to the victim D from the Loan of this case to the victim D” under the loan of this case B B, 301, 35 million won.

The term “the same day lease contract was concluded.” However, the owner of the above building is E in fact, and the Defendant and E did not have any intent or ability to move in even if they receive the deposit from the victim, such as not notifying the victim of the above fact despite having been in dispute over the ownership of the above building. Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 4 million from the victim, remitted the down payment of KRW 31 million on June 15, 201, and acquired it by transfer.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

C. The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the Defendant purchased the instant loan site from G and H for the purpose of constructing the instant loan site (hereinafter “instant site”) and decided to pay in kind two households out of the instant loan with the purchase price; ② the Defendant borrowed KRW 500 million from I for the new construction of the instant loan, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant loan site under the name of E, which is the seat of I, the owner of the instant loan; ③ the Defendant and the Defendant’s agent, disposed of the instant loan site under the name of B, such as sale in lots, and E and I.