Accordingly, at around 15:00 on July 21, 201, C and D discussed the repayment of the principal and interest on the loan with the Defendant at the Defendant’s house, Gangnam-gu Seoul E Apartment 55 106 Dong 106, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and discussed on the repayment of the principal and interest on the loan with the Defendant. Even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim F, which was introduced by C while having no intent or ability to repay it at the due date, and the Defendant borrowed the amount of the principal and interest on the loan to C by borrowing KRW 100 million from the victim F, which was introduced by C, with the victim’s telephone communications with the victim on the basis of C’s arrangement, and on December 19, 2011, the Defendant received the amount of KRW 100 million from the victim to the account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

2. Determination:

A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, insofar as the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

B. In full view of the circumstances revealed in the records of this case, there is room for doubt as to the credibility of the statements of C, F and D as shown in the facts charged, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant deceiving F as stated in the facts charged, and that the Defendant acquired 100 million won through deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1 D differs from the police office of the defendant at the time C at the time.