The judgment below

Of them, the guilty part against Defendant A (including the acquittal part for reasons) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) misunderstanding the fact that Defendant AX violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes against X; and (b) misunderstanding the legal principles, the lower court obtained a total of KRW 3.73 billion from X as the vehicle sales price or the borrowed money ( KRW 1.2 billion around June 4, 2010, KRW 1.1 billion around June 16, 2010, KRW 1.43 billion around June 16, 2010, and KRW 2.43 billion from around June 25, 2010 to July 12, 2010, and obtained a delivery of KRW 1.580 million among them.

However, the Defendant, on June 4, 2010, borrowed a total of KRW 2.5 billion from X in early 2010, and then borrowed a total of KRW 1.2 billion around June 4, 2010, KRW 1.2 billion around June 16, 2010, KRW 500 million around June 25, 2010, and KRW 6.55 billion around July 9, 2010, according to such comprehensive loan agreement, and borrowed only KRW 2.45 billion in total at the time of the above loan.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

The misunderstanding of the facts about AB's violation of the Act on the AB A's AB A's AB's AB and the misunderstanding of the legal principles did not borrow KRW 300 million from AB on July 21, 2010.

The preparation of a loan certificate with the AB will aim to adjust the existing outstanding loan principal and interest.

In addition, at the same time, the defendant had the intention and ability to repay.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor stated in the petition of appeal the grounds for appeal against the defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles). However, the prosecutor did not make an oral statement of the grounds for appeal against the defendant A in addition to misconception of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles at the first trial date. The prosecutor did not assert the grounds for appeal against the defendant A (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da15488, May 1, 2007).