Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous.

2. On July 24, 2009, the Defendant, at the “D” indoor fishing place operated by the Defendant of the Defendant of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, concluded that the victim E, “Around July 24, 2009, the Plaintiff would be able to reduce the cost if he imports and uses a new letter, thereby reducing the cost.”

However, as the defendant promised to the victim, there was no intention or ability to import the new letter in Thailand.

After deceiving the victim as such, the Defendant received KRW 2.95 million from the victim on the same day.

3. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that “The Defendant was found to have received KRW 2,950,00 from E even though he did not have the intent or ability to import a new letter from the Thailand because he did not transfer the said money to the customer of the Thailand after receiving KRW 29,50,000 from the victim on July 24, 2009, but the aforementioned suspicion alone cannot be recognized as guilty of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to support the conviction without reasonable doubt.”

4. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant imported new letter from Thailand one to three times each month from October 2008 to May 2009, and the defendant remitted approximately KRW 60,000 (Korean Won KRW 2,300,000) to the customer located in Thailand on July 15, 2009. In light of the above facts of recognition, the defendant transferred this fact.