1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as follows: (a) No. 2, 19 of the first instance judgment; and (b) No. 16, 18 of the evidence No. 16 to 18 of the first instance judgment is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance judgment, except for addition of each of the evidence No. 16 to 18 of the grounds for recognition

[Supplementary Parts]

F. On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of defraudation of KRW 70 million and embezzlement of KRW 39,127,742, the fire insurance money. On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was convicted of having been sentenced to the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for six months for the Changwon District Court’s Tong-gu Branch Branch of Changwon District Court 2016Kadan380, and the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed (Seoul District Court 2016No3273), and thereafter, the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court 2017Do3405), and the judgment became final and conclusive.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition or modification as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or modified part] The part of the first instance judgment’s judgment: (a) 3 pages 3, 10, 100, 100 won for 4,90,000 won for 4,90 won for 30,000 won for 4,90,000 won for 4,90,000 won for 30,000 won for 4,30,000 won for 30,000 won for 4,30,000 won for 30,000.

In the first instance judgment No. 3, 19 of the 19th instance judgment, the phrase “if it is insufficient,” and rather, according to the evidence No. 8, the rent paid on August 27, 2013, which was after the fire, appears to be the rent for July 2013, unlike the Defendant’s assertion.

On the third and nine pages of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added.

1. Under the premise that the Defendant received not the loan but the loan amount of KRW 40 million as of August 21, 2013, and KRW 30 million as of September 21, 2013, the Defendant submitted a preparatory document dated April 18, 2016 at the trial.