The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) The Defendant received KRW 190 million from E not only the money borrowed from E but also the money received as an investment bond in apartment sale. 2) Although the Defendant did not prepare a loan certificate between the Defendant and E, there was no clear determination as to the interest on the loan, there was no special objection to the payment of interest within about 10%, and E did not have any particular objection to it. The Defendant paid KRW 82,80,000 in total the principal and interest to E from October 29, 2009 to December 30, 2010.

3) Therefore, even though the Defendant did not deceiving E and did not intend to commit fraud, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) In light of the overall sentencing sentencing conditions of the instant case on unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (one and half years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. While around September 2009, the Defendant made a false statement in the charges of this case that “F, the husband of the wife, is the representative of the G Building Design Office and is between the representative director of the modern industry development representative director and the friendship-friendly relationship with the victim E” at the D office located in Ansan-gu, Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “F, the husband of the wife, is the representative of the G Building Design Office,” and that if it is necessary to make an investment in implementing the H apartment reconstruction project of Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, 2-3 years

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he did not have the intent to use it for the reconstruction project of the above apartment in accordance with the purpose of investment, and because the reconstruction project of the apartment at the time was not in progress, the victim did not have the intent or ability to provide the apartment at the selling price to

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above and deceiving it from the victim, to the bank account in the name of the Defendant from the victim to the bank account in the name of the Defendant, KRW 100 million on October 22, 2009, and KRW 20 million on November 5, 2009.