The defendant shall be innocent.

However, according to the statements made by the victims in the investigative agency, it is recognized that the victims had taken money by deceiving them, even though they did not have the ability to repay or intent to repay their debts from the surrounding persons.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The ex officio reversal prosecutor following the changes in the indictment has filed an application for changes in the indictment as stated in the following facts, and the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained as the case is changed as the case is permitted by this court.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake, the lower court determined that the evidence alone, which was submitted by the prosecutor, cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt that the Defendant deceivings the victims about the economic situation, etc. of the Defendant with the intent to acquire money from the victims.

The victims maintained a close relationship with the defendant and have engaged in money transactions several times for a long time, the victims who have borrowed money for reasons of demanding the victims to incur losses, medical insurance premiums, and payment of card bills, etc. are aware that the economic situation of the defendant was not good, and it is difficult to view that the defendant used a deceptive act other than those that the economic situation is not good when the defendant borrowed money to the victims, and the defendant is the principal of the victims over a long period of time.