1. The defendant is not guilty; 2. The defendant shall reject an application for compensation by an applicant for compensation.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is C’s representative director established for the purpose of investment consulting, etc.

In fact, the Defendant did not have the capacity to accept D buildings in Jung-gu in Seoul, and did not have the intent or ability to repay even if he borrowed money from the victim B, the Defendant was transferred from the victim to the H bank account in the name of the Defendant (I) in the F judicial scrivener office located in Seocheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, to the victim at around June 30, 2017, “The amount equivalent to KRW 400 billion is already secured to acquire the D building at KRW 450 billion as the preferential purchaser. The amount of KRW 50 million may be lent to the funds owner at KRW 50 billion if he/she would be paid to the funds owner after one month.”

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s arguments have been forwarded KRW 50 million from the victim as stated in the facts charged.

However, as long as the Defendant was in the position of a preferential purchaser for D building, and the said money was provided by the victim sufficient security at the time of borrowing the said money, the Defendant had intent and ability to repay the said borrowed money, but the Defendant was unable to take over the said building as scheduled due to unexpected circumstances, and the said money was not returned to the wind that the son voluntarily abandoned the said money. Therefore, there was no intention of deceiving or deceiving the victim.

B. The relevant legal doctrine is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake, causing a dispositive act to cause a dispositive act, thereby obtaining property or pecuniary gain. Therefore, there is a causal relationship between deception, mistake, and property disposal act. On the other hand, whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake to another person, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and property disposal act is the situation of transaction, and the other party’s transaction.