On January 16, 2017, the Defendant borrowed KRW 130,000,000,000 from the victim on the commercial paper near the construction site of the D apartment in Sung-si, Sung-si, to repay to the victim within 20,000,000,000, as he/she is in need of supply of the business.

“ ........”

However, at the time, the Defendant was urged to repay the debt, and the amount borrowed from the victim was also used for the repayment of debt, etc., and even if the victim borrowed KRW 130 million from the victim, there was no intention or ability to make a change to the victim within 2.3 days.

On January 17, 2017, the Defendant received a total of KRW 130 million from the damaged party to the post office account (E) account in the name of the Defendant on two occasions.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, delivered property.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt must be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the prosecutor's proof does not reach such a level of conviction, even if there are suspicions of guilt, it cannot be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

B. The defendant and his defense counsel received KRW 130 million from the injured party. However, among them, KRW 30 million was paid as material price, and the remaining KRW 100 million was thought to be immediately repaid, so there was no intention to acquire it by deception.

The argument is asserted.

(c)

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the criminal intent to acquire the defendant was not reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

(1) The defendant supplied building materials to the victim, and the victim.