The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall dismiss an application for remedy by the applicant for remedy of innocence.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) by the victim C’s statement and guidance division, etc., it is recognized that the victim borrowed each money from the victim without the intent or ability to repay, when the defendant borrowed money from the victim and other persons, including the victim, in excess of his/her debt due to lack of business funds, etc., and considering the evidence Nos. 1, 9, 148 of the evidence record of the fact that he/she left Canada via the Hong Congo on August 13, 1995, the defendant borrowed money from the victim without the intention or ability to repay.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the phrase “10 million won” in Article 4 of the facts charged at the appellate court as “2,50 million won,” and in Article 5 of the facts charged, “the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was delivered one million won to the damaged party at the same time” in Article 5 of the facts charged. The Defendant applied for amendments to the indictment with the phrase “the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received from the injured party, one million won from the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant on July 22, 1995,” and since this court changed the subject matter of the judgment by permitting it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below, despite the above reasons for reversal.

B. The revised facts charged [limited to the fraud committed on May 6, 1995, 5) that part of the facts charged was changed by the appellate court through the amendment of indictment is limited to the fraud committed on July 15, 1995]

1) On April 20, 1994, the fraud Defendant was organized under the name of 25 members under the name of the victim C, by borrowing money from the victim C on February 20, 1994.