The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from R for the operating funds of the Religious Order, not that he received the above money in return for appointment of K.

In addition, since the 100 million won received from R was used for the end, the Defendant did not acquire any property or property benefits.

2. Determination

A. 10 million won received from R is determined by comprehensively taking into account all the objective circumstances revealed by evidence, such as the motive, process and method of delivery, relationship between the receiver and the evidencer, the position and occupation of the receiver, the necessity of the borrower and the possibility of borrowing from a person other than the evidencer, the amount and method of borrowing, the economic situation of the borrower, the amount and method of providing collateral, the payment period and interest agreement, the repayment of principal and interest of the borrower, the demand of the payer at the time of default, and the possibility of compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3943, Sept. 7, 2007) as a whole, the court below's determination should be made as to whether the borrower actually borrowed the money from the lender as to whether the borrower received the money from the lender.

① The R stated in the court of first instance that “the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant in return for the well-known appointment, on March 2009, on the ground that he/she appointed KRW 100 million as K chief on his/her own.”

R has made a statement that the investigative agency and the court below lent money to the defendant at the court below.