Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인 1) 사실오인 내지 법리오해 ㈎ 피고인이 융자받은 관광진흥개발기금은 보조금이 아니라 담보대출금에 해당하므로, 피고인이 그 중 일부를 지정된 용도 외에 사용할 목적으로 교부받았다고 하더라도 피고인의 기망행위 내지 편취 범의가 인정되지 않는다. ㈏ 피고인은 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표 기재 각 금원을 모두 지정된 용도의 범위 내에서 사용하였다. 2) 심리미진 원심은 피고인이 관광진흥개발기금 31억 4,000만 원 중 12억 3,000만 원을 용도외의 다른 곳에 사용하였다고 판단하였으나, 피고인이 I의 H호텔 사전 공사를 위하여 공사비로 대여하였다가 이를 변제받은 것일 뿐이어서 편취 금액에 관하여 충분히 심리하지 않은 원심 판결에는 심리미진의 위법이 있다.

3) In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the part of the charge of acquiring the deposit money for the victim F, the court below acquitted the victim of this part of the charges on the ground that the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant completed the construction of the second and the third floor of the extension of this case to the extent that the victim could use and benefit from the victim, but the court below acquitted the victim of this part of the charges because the statement by the victim of the loan fraud against the victim F is sufficiently recognized as reliable, since the defendant's statement of the victim of the loan fraud against the victim F is sufficiently recognized as reliable, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges on this part by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that 10 million won was acquired from the victim without the victim's intent to repay, even though the defendant did not wish to repay.

2 The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The defendant's mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and incomplete hearing.