The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles did not have the intention to deception the defendant, and the defendant did not make the same statement as the facts constituting the crime to the victim and did not have made the deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. Sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court (an amount of five million won) against the Defendant, which was sentenced by the lower court.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged 1) The Defendant, around February 9, 2009, called “the bank to pay the loan” to the victim at the victim D’s house of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment 122, Dong 405, the victim D around February 9, 2009.

The interest of 10 million won shall be paid on a monthly basis by lending 10 million won.

“.......”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money, he did not have the intention or ability to change it from time.

Therefore, it received 10 million won from the damaged person to the bank account of the defendant's name on the same day.

2) On March 2009, the Defendant lent 50 million won as soon as possible to the said victim’s money borrowed from the inside and outside of the Republic of Korea to the police officer at the above place. If the Defendant borrowed money from the bank as a security to the apartment, the Defendant would pay 2.5 million won as monthly interest, and if the principal is changed, the Defendant would immediately pay the money.

The Court stated that the security loan fee of KRW 300,000 shall be KRW 49,700,000 shall be remitted.

However, even if the defendant borrowed money, he did not have the intention or ability to change it from time.

Therefore, the damage is the same from the above victim.

4.1. Around January, 200, the Defendant received money from 49.7 million won to the bank account in the name of the Defendant.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the Defendant at the time of receiving money from D.