F is the same passbook, and G is the building contractor of the above E-house.

The injured party was planning to build a new house on the land of Yongsan-si District E through G around 2014, but confirmed that the said land was an “electric franchise” under which electric wires are not connected, and was introduced to the Defendant through F.

On May 20, 2014, the Defendant stated that “If the Defendant pays KRW 40 million to B as electricity usage fee, the Defendant would help the Defendant connect the electricity line of the house owned by the Party (victim) from the C Housing owned by the Party (victim) to the electric power line of the house to be used.”

However, even if the defendant receives KRW 40 million from the victim, the defendant did not have the intent and ability to help the above E to connect the electric wires with the above E in the above C house.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 40 million won from the victim to the account of community credit cooperatives (H) in the name of the Defendant on the same day, and acquired it by fraud.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are recognized.

1) On May 1, 2012, the victim is only I (hereinafter “I”) of the Suwon-si Suwon-si Area around May 1, 2012.

E was granted a building permit for new construction of housing.

During the period of delay after the commencement, the victims shall be required for the new construction works.