The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

The lower court rendered a judgment of innocence.

After the prosecutor appealeds on the ground of mistake of facts, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment at the trial court, and this court permitted this and changed the object of the adjudication.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

(The following is the part of the charges of this case, which has been changed from the upper body of the fifth body with the upper body of the fifth body of the charges of this case)

1. The Defendant is a person who actually runs C located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Due to the relationship between the victim D and the branch, the defendant received orders from the victim and the kindergarten operated by the victim, and the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, F-ground multi-family house, Seoul Jongno-gu G ground house.

On September 5, 2014, the Defendant requested the victim to pay the construction cost as a test for the above multi-family housing. On September 5, 2014, the victim obtained a loan of KRW 100 million from H as collateral for real estate under the victim’s family name and paid to the Defendant.

After that, on October 24, 2014, the victim delegated I with the duty of repayment of the obligation to H and the duty of cancellation of the right to collateral security, and remitted KRW 19 million to I as used to repay the said obligation to the said I. The Defendant concluded the above G ground lease contract as an agent of the victim, and had the lessee remit the lease deposit amount of KRW 85 million around October 25, 2014 to the said I.

The Defendant was well aware of the fact that the said I received money as above should be used for the victim’s debt repayment to H, a stock company, and that the said I was closely friendly between the Defendant and the victim, and that in relation to the said Corporation, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was carrying out various duties on behalf of the victim.