1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 191,50,000 and KRW 116,00,000 among them.

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. 1 of the first instance judgment

d) the following subparagraphs:

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a total of KRW 2.5 million, including KRW 10 million on April 10, 2014, KRW 10 million on July 1, 2014, KRW 95 million on July 7, 2014, and KRW 2.5 million on July 7, 2014 (i.e., KRW 100 million, KRW 95 million; hereinafter “the instant investment amount”). The Defendant paid KRW 5 million on April 10, 2014 ( KRW 25 million), KRW 6 million on July 1, 2014, KRW 40 million on July 8, 2014, KRW 15 million on a check, etc. ( KRW 4 million on a check, etc.) to the Defendant, including KRW 10 million on a deposit, KRW 4 million on a deposit, KRW 15 million on a deposit, etc.

7. up to November, 11, 190, KRW 156 million out of the investment funds of this case was used.

The paragraph (g) of the first instance judgment is as follows.

G. On February 21, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the crime of embezzlement with the purport that “a part of the instant investment money kept in custody for the Plaintiff was consumed for personal purposes,” and that “the instant loan was stolen from the Plaintiff” was the crime of fraud, etc., and was sentenced to a verdict of innocence with respect to embezzlement that the Defendant voluntarily consumeded KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on the same day, among KRW 10 million received from the Plaintiff on April 10, 2014.

[Defendant and prosecutor appealed against the above judgment (Tgu District Court Decision 2017No688, 2018 Godan14). The appellate court reversed the original judgment ex officio on January 24, 2019 on the ground that the indictment was modified on January 24, 2019, and sentenced the defendant and prosecutor to the same punishment as the original judgment without accepting the assertion of mistake of facts.

The defendant is dissatisfied with the above judgment and filed an appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2019Do2678), and is currently pending in the court of final appeal.