On February 27, 2014, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to purchase high-class golf loans, and around 00, Daejeon-gu * in Daejeon-gu * in order to purchase high-class golf loans to KRW 2.5 million. The Defendant sent money to the P account and 21:09 P account on the same day to obtain financial gains by transferring KRW 2.5 million to the P account.

2. Determination

There are evidence to support the Defendant’s deception that he would purchase high golf loans. However, as seen below, it is difficult to believe each of the statements of A as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant deceiving A as shown in the facts charged.

A. The following circumstances arising from A’s statement do not conform to the ordinary trading practices, and the statement is not reasonable.

1) A did not specify any model in addition to the designation of a golf-backed brand as mixed in the course of golf-backed purchase in the amount of KRW 2.5 million, and did not inquire into what kind of model it consists.

2) A does not have to confirm the current status of golf loans, whether golf loans actually exist, who is the seller, etc., and did not see the price of golf loans once.

3) A, while not only the Defendant’s golf but also the golf trading business, is not a business. With the knowledge of the fact, A, even though having been entrusted, he believed and delegated the Defendant with respect to the purchase of golf bonds, and the statement that he/she would buy golf bonds was transferred the full amount of the price requested by the Defendant on the day.

B. In this Court, A made a statement to the effect that, with regard to the process of requesting the Defendant to purchase golf loans, “A only refused to lend money from the Defendant and there is no money.” However, according to the records, A lent KRW 18,50,000 to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request on February 12, 2014, which was 200,000,000 won before the date, deposited into the same account as the instant case, and received KRW 2,00,000,000 including interest on February 21, 2014. In light of the above acknowledged facts, A’s motive for refusing to lend money and the circumstances leading up to making the Defendant to pay the money of this case are not easily.

C. From April 14, 2014 to June 2, 2014, A received text messages from the Defendant several times after the instant crime, and the following circumstances are inconsistent with A’s statements, such as the fact that there was no mentioning about golf bonds at all, and the fact that A’s owner in the instant crime stated that the Defendant and A did not have any knowledge about the meaning of golf bonds **, etc., in holding a phone call with the police with wire.

D. The defendant consistently borrowed KRW 2.5 million from the investigative agency to this court, and the defendant did not repay to A, as seen earlier, that he borrowed money of a similar size to A prior to the two weeks of this case, and he remitted the money to an account in the name of the same third party designated by the defendant at the time. In light of the fact that A remitted the money to the account in the name of the same third party designated by the defendant at the time, and A remitted money without specifying the medium-sized golf bond model, verifying the shape of the goods, or expressing the price of the goods, such as the defendant's change, the possibility that the defendant merely borrowed KRW 2.5 million from A cannot be ruled out. < Amended by Act No. 3070, Mar. 3, 201>

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Act.