However, since the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime, the court below erred in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. A. Around April 12, 2012, the summary of the instant facts charged, the Defendant stated in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, that “A victim C is able to receive compensation from the land of Cho Cho Jong-tae because it had been expropriated in the LH Corporation. In receipt of compensation, the Defendant borrowed the money to repay the money.”

However, the Defendant had no property under his/her name, and had already been in excess of his/her obligation, such as a loan of 60 million won, and even if he/she was paid compensation, he/she could not charge part of the compensation. Therefore, even if he/she borrowed money from the victim, he/she did not have any intent or ability to pay the loan.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 20 million won check from the victim around April 12, 2012 and received 65 million won in total from the above date to November 5, 2013, as shown in the annexed crime list, from the above date to November 5, 2013.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the criminal intent of the Defendant’s defraudation is beyond reasonable doubt, since it appears that D received land expropriation money from E and it would have been able to repay it to the victim.

C. The burden of proving the facts charged in the first criminal trial for the judgment of the trial court is the prosecutor, and the conviction is the judge.