The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Although the Defendant filed an application for approval of the development project stated in the facts charged in the instant case with Pyeongtaek-si, it was not returned and the approval of the project was not granted, and at the time the Defendant received each of the money indicated in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant money”) from the injured party, the Defendant had a total of KRW 1 billion against E andO and a total of KRW 7 billion against the financial institution under the pretext of investment in the instant project.

Therefore, although the defendant applied for a loan to a Korean mutual savings bank (hereinafter "Korean mutual savings bank"), there was no possibility that the defendant would receive a loan from this and repay the debt to the victim.

B. The fact that the Defendant purchased considerable land for the development project as stated in the facts charged of the instant case and applied for business approval by meeting certain requirements can be acknowledged.

However, at the time of receiving transfer of the instant money from the injured party, as stated in the above facts charged, the Defendant’s check worth KRW 100 million issued was in default, and the Defendant’s real estate was not used as security at will and did not change the amount of KRW 200 million. In relation to the above business, the Defendant did not pay the money to the injured party as well as the other investors.

In light of these circumstances, the criminal intent cannot be denied merely by the expectation that the defendant is able to obtain a PE loan as stated in the judgment of the court below.

(c)

Ultimately, in light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant by deceiving the victim and defrauding the money of this case.

It is reasonable to view it.

However, the court below rejected the credibility of relevant evidence without reasonable grounds and acquitted the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is Gangnam-gu Seoul around February 2008.