On the other hand, the victim has consistently made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court below's decision, and the witness H and I's statement and account transaction details are consistent with this, and the victim's statement is credibility.

In addition, a copy of the monetary loan agreement dated July 7, 2017 (hereinafter “the monetary loan agreement in this case”) has the Defendant’s seal imprint affixed, and the Defendant’s seal imprint registration certificate is attached on April 25, 2017.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the probative value of the victim's statement and disposal document, and found the not guilty of the facts charged in this case erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the evidence alone, which was presented by the prosecutor, was insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant obtained cash 35 million U.N. from the victim as the borrowed money on or around July 7, 2017, and acquired by deception.

When the Defendant receives sirens from July 6, 2017 to July 7, 2017, he/she confirms the documents that enables identification of the identity of the passport, etc. and the valid driver's license, and it is difficult for a third party, other than the Defendant, to use the sirens in the name of the Defendant. The Defendant asserted that there was about 400 kilometers from the place where the Defendant asserted that he/she was prepared on the date of preparation of the monetary loan contract in this case, and denies that he/she affixed the said contract and affixed a seal on the said contract. In light of the written claim for the use of the sirens submitted by the Defendant and the receipt for the hotel use, the authenticity of