A false statement was made to the effect that it would allow construction, such as electricity, equipment, etc., on the face of money.

However, the Defendant did not have been delegated by E, the president of the above union, with the authority to select a corporation with respect to the construction of electricity, facilities, etc., so even if receiving money from the corporation, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to allow the corporation to perform the construction of electricity, facilities, etc. in the above building.

Nevertheless, on August 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) informed B of the aforementioned false statement, and caused B B to transfer the said false statement to the victim at the office of the victim H located in the office of the victim H located in the building F of the Ansan-gu building G; (b) deceiving the victim; (c) received KRW 20 million on August 9, 2016; and (d) delivered KRW 15 million on September 1, 2016 from the victim via B.

2. Determination

A. Whether a crime of fraud is established shall be determined at the time of the act, and the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by taking full account of the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, the process of performing transactions, etc., unless

B. Comprehensively taking account of the records of this case and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to have a reasonable doubt as to the facts charged of this case.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① At an investigative agency and this court, I introduced the J as the contractor of the D building E to the president of the C Union, who is the executor of the D building, and, in return, J. Co., Ltd.