Of the facts charged against A, the fraud and the defendant B are innocent, respectively. The facts charged against the defendant A.

1. Defendant A is the president of E; Defendant B, as a management director of the F convalescent Hospital, intended to receive money from the victim G to receive money as a deposit money in return for exceeding the F convalescent Hospital’s right to operate the F convalescent Hospital due to financial difficulties.

Defendant

B at the F Hospital Management Director's Office located in H on February 8, 2015, G around 14:00, the victim is entitled to rent KRW 10 million per month for the deposit amount of KRW 500,000,000 per month at the F Hospital Management Director's Office on the next day.

However, it would be leased to the Party on a condition that the monthly rent of KRW 300 million is 5 million, and instead, it would be paid as soon as the deposit is paid in February, and the hospital is operated from March 1. The Defendant A, who was the representative director of the Party E, was reported by the Defendant B on the same day to enter into a lease contract with the victim on the same day.

However, it was impossible for an injured person under the Medical Service Act to operate a hospital, and a negotiation with I and E with an equipment exceeding the operation of I and E was underway on February 1, 2015. In fact, the victim had no intention or ability to operate a hospital, since it was agreed that I would receive financial support from I and would go beyond the operation of the said foundation on February 10, 2015.

As above, the Defendants deceptiond the victim as to and from the victim, and caused the damage to the victim, the amount of KRW 30 million on February 8, 2015 as the deposit money for lease, and the same month.

9. The remittance of KRW 80 million, KRW 25 million on the 14.25 million on the same month, and KRW 75 million on the 16.75 million on the same month, and acquired a total of KRW 210 million.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt has probative value that leads a judge to feel true to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt.