However, in fact, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to accept the private letter, and even if he borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the principal and interest within three months.

The Defendant received KRW 30,00 from the damaged party to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of D, around May 27, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. We examine that the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the victim by making a false statement, such as the facts charged, to the victim.

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) The accused and the victim do not have any particular trust relationship with the introduction of public prosecution and E, except for the case of having a relationship several times.

Even based on the victim's statement consistent with the facts charged, there was no interest agreement between the defendant and the victim (4 pages and 13 pages of investigation records). On the other hand, the victim has a strong relationship with E and has a relationship of continuing a considerable monetary transaction.

(2) The F is a person who colors the joint acceptance of a private letter, etc. in Daejeon, accompanied by E.

In that sense, F’s statement suggests that the Defendant was not the Defendant but the Defendant who received the remittance of KRW 30,000,000,000,000, which is the Defendant’s right to dispose of the said KRW 30,000,000 (the 98th page, 227th page). (B) Moreover, the text message sent by E himself to the Defendant corresponds to this (the 209th page) (the 209 page). ③ The victim and E are between the Defendant and E in the same way written accusation against the Defendant in relation to the facts charged, but the above 30,000,0