2. Determination

A. On August 2012, 2012, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant, via a person who is a police officer in a non-permanent place, called “C”, made a false statement to the victim D, stating that “On the face of the week, the Defendant would modify the facts charged according to the prosecutor’s application for changes in indictment, as stated in the written application for changes in indictment, as he/she received the cost of design service from

However, even if the household is supplied by the victim, there is no intention or ability to pay the credit.

Ultimately, around August 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained from the victim the supply of household units equivalent to KRW 8,495,300 to the “F” architect office located in Chungcheongnam-gun E and 102, the architect office of the Defendant, which is the architect office of the Defendant; and (c) obtained it by deception.

B. The court below held that the police interrogation protocol of the defendant, as shown in some of the facts charged of this case, is inadmissible as the defendant denies its contents, and it is difficult for the defendant to pay the amount immediately after the defendant was supplied with his/her household), against D and C's each legal statement (which means that the defendant will pay the price for his/her household when he/she received the design service). According to each construction design and construction supervision confirmation, the copy of the decision of recommending settlement recommendation, and each lease agreement, etc. submitted by the defendant, the defendant was capable of performing his/her duties because he/she had considerable property, such as the design service payment claim and the lease deposit refund claim, etc.