On July 3, 2018, the Defendant sent to the victim a document stating that “1.5 million won shall be deducted under the name of real estate brokerage commission” to the victim through employees in the name of E at a closed place on July 3, 2018.

As the real estate intermediary fee for the lease contract for the above real estate was paid in KRW 1.5 million, the victim was deceiving.

However, in fact, 1.5 million won was not paid as a fee for real estate brokerage for the lease contract on the above real estate.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, had the victim exempt the victim from 1.5 million won out of the claims under the above agreement against the defendant, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). 3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to mislead the victim and KRW 1.5 million.