2. Determination

A. On February 11, 2011, the Defendant stated that, within the scope of the victim D’s operation E in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, the Defendant requested the victim to grant the construction permit to the Dong-gu Office by requesting the victim “F, G, H land, and dry field 580 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) to the Dong-gu Office for the construction permit.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to obtain the building permit as above even if he received expenses from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, and deceiving him/her from the victim, to KRW 3 million on February 11, 201, and the same year.

2. 21.5 million won, and the same year.

3. 22.3 million won, and the same year.

7. 22. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.0 million won by receiving and defrauding them.

B. The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the record, the victim D’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court’s finding that the statements meet the facts charged in the instant case are difficult to believe, and rather, various circumstances consistent with the Defendant’s assertion are observed. Thus, other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

① As alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant conducted a survey of the instant land before the process of the building permit procedure, and made efforts to correct cadastral errors revealed as a result of the survey. The Defendant introduced the L of the J and the Construction Office, which is the architectural designer of the I Architectural Office, to the victim, and entered into a design contract, etc. with him/her, and is in progress with the victim.