The Defendant entered other companies due to the lack of business funds that he/she operates, and was found to meet the operating expenses of E by punishing money, and then asked the complainant who was aware of this fact to help him/her work for his/her factory by finding out the Defendant. On October 23, 2014, the Defendant employed the complainant’s factory at around October 23, 2014, that “it is necessary to operate the company, 23 million won borrowed, 23 million won borrowed, and 20 million won will be repaid and repaid as soon as possible.” On November 20, 2014, the Defendant believed the complainant to be true and wired 20 million won to the Defendant’s corporate bank account (J).

However, the Defendant did not pay 20 million won to the complainants who believe that he had no intention or ability to pay the money from the beginning, and did not pay 20 million won to the complainants who have believed to be the truth.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction is based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge not having reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt, so if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the defendant is suspected of guilty even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1716 Decided May 26, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163 Decided November 30, 2007, etc.) B.

A witness F’s statement was made as evidence consistent with the above facts charged, but the following circumstances recognized by the records of this case, i.e., the Defendant’s operation.