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. The summary of the grounds for appeal is clearly explained by the victim's complaint and the first statement to the investigative agency as follows: "the defendant has raised money in another place." The victim's statement cannot be deemed contradictory since it stated from the prosecutor's investigation that "the other place was the State subsidy." The victim's statement from the prosecutor's investigation to "the other place was the State subsidy." The victim's statement is clearly explained as follows: "the reason why the statement is specified is that "the attorney did not accurately speak to the attorney, and the other place stated in the complaint was the government subsidy." It clearly explained in detail when the defendant solicits the victim to make an investment in his environment-friendly business in close vicinity to the victim. The victim clearly stated that the defendant refused to make a request for a loan or investment before the defendant talks with the victim, but the defendant was merely lent money to the victim as business fund, but the defendant actually uses the borrowed money as investment in stocks, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's statement was deceiving the victim by the government subsidy and by deceiving the victim.

In addition, the Defendant owned the instant building, commercial buildings located in Songpa-gu Seoul, apartment buildings located in Songpa-gu, and apartment buildings located in Songpa-gu, Seoul, but the pledge was established following the deposit at the request of the Japanese new bank. Each apartment building in Yongsan-gu and Songpa-gu was established near the value thereof, and there was no specific property such as losses incurred to the Defendant’s business. Therefore, the Defendant was not able to cancel the provisional attachment registration by paying the debt related to the provisional attachment established in the instant building, and the provisional attachment registration was de facto cancelled around October 201, and the Defendant was 200 million won from the victim.