However, in fact, although the Defendant intended to obtain a loan or to operate a high flag with an investment in the state of capital, it was not clear at the time that the loan was carried out or the investor was not secured, and it was not a building owned by the Defendant, and the victim did not have any specific property and did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost as the promise even

The Defendant had the victim carry out the removal construction of the said commercial building from August 16, 2017 to August 19, 2017, and did not pay approximately KRW 10,77 million of the construction cost.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Judgment

In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting the offense charged is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined.

If it is not recognized that the defendant is liable to pay the construction cost stated in the judgment of the defendant, the defendant cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of fraud on the ground that the defendant did not pay the construction cost. In full view of the following circumstances, the prosecutor submitted the witness C, E, F, G’s each legal statement, police suspect interrogation protocol against C, C and H’s written statement, and prosecutor’s statement of C and H