The defendant shall be innocent.

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had the ability to repay KRW 30 million borrowed from the injured party, and the Defendant believed that the Defendant would be able to lend money from the injured party to the injured party and borrowed money from the injured party in trust and borrowed money from the injured party in return for the payment of national taxes. Therefore, there was no deception of the injured party, and there was no intention to commit fraud by the accused.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 29, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant was liable for a loan of KRW 4 billion to the Suhyup-si D Office located in Ansan-si, Seoul-si, and that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation was unable to lend money from the victim E even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim E because of economic difficulties due to the damage liability, etc., the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay the money, the Defendant shall complete the project for remodeling the 7,8, and September of the 7,8, and September of the 7th anniversary of the fact that “the 50,000 won of national tax was not paid, and the 50,000 won was not changed to the bank, making it difficult to remodel the Defendant.

Only one month from the loan of 50 million won to pay taxes, and the loan will be paid immediately with the loan and the remodeling work will also be made.

‘Falsely speaking, it received 30 million won from the injured party to the Saemaul Treasury Account (G) in the name of F, the Defendant’s wife immediately from the injured party and acquired it by money.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following evidence.

(c)

(1) In the relevant criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting a crime should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt.