The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The facts charged No. B is a person who was the head of the D Apartment Reconstruction Work Association established to reconstruct D apartment units from March 20, 2005 to June 30, 2014, and the defendant is the actual operator of E management business entity specialized in the improvement project, who was entrusted by the said Association with the work of vicarious execution, etc. for the implementation of the said improvement project, around May 16, 2005 and around January 1, 2013.

The Defendant and B around July 15, 2010, at the office of the D apartment reconstruction and consolidation project association office located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City City Special Metropolitan City City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Housing Advertising Rights to lend KRW 150,000,000 to G, and the said money will be repaid until November 30,

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the above improvement project has the authority to conclude a contract for vicarious performance of sale advertising with the association which is the main agent of promoting reconstruction, but the defendant and B did not have the intent or ability to grant the right to provide the service for sale advertising to the victim, even if they received money from the damaged party, and most of the project expenses were appropriated from the funds borrowed from H Co., Ltd. which is the contractor, and the defendant was responsible for the joint and several liability of the amount equivalent to KRW 1.9 billion that the association bears to the contractor, and the defendant was also also not able to borrow additional funds from the contractor due to the commencement of the management procedure for the contractor on July 5, 2010, because it was impossible for the above victim to prepare and repay the money promised to the above victim by the deadline.

The Defendants received from the injured party the check of KRW 150,000 from the seat of 150,000.

As a result, the defendants conspired to acquire the property of the victim.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, is that the defendant does not confession.