However, the defendant has a variety of patents related to rice products, but has never been engaged in or commercialized a business using a patent right, etc., and there was no intention or ability to develop and deliver the money so that the products can be commercialized, and there was no intention to use the money as product development cost.

Nevertheless, on November 19, 2008, the Defendant received money KRW 60 million from the victim to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant’s child and acquired it by fraud.

2. The prosecutor's evidence of criminal facts is presented in the form of a board-to-door, and in the criminal procedure. Even if the prosecutor's appeal is unreasonable and the defendant's appeal is false, it cannot be disadvantageous to the defendant. The proof of criminal facts must have a judge have high probability to recognize high level of probability to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the suspect's suspicion of guilt is doubtful.

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do327, Mar. 23, 1993; 2012Do6522, Aug. 23, 2012). According to the records of this case, the Defendant consistently receives KRW 60 million from the victim since the investigative agency to the court below, and the Defendant has the existing status on the condition that he did not deliver it to local governments, etc. in operating the business of manufacturing and selling the current vending machine.