The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and nine months.

The judgment below

. Innocence.

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (2016 high group 3039), according to the prosecutor’s (2016 high group 3039), the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim C as the facts charged, thereby deceiving the victim C with 100 million

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the facts charged.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 Delivered on December 24, 2002), it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as the defendant's interest even if there is no such evidence (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 Delivered on December 24, 2002). (B) The court below consistently changed the purport that the defendant concluded a sales contract with AF corporation, which was contracted from AF corporation to AH corporation, for the removal of AG new apartment construction works, before receiving KRW 100 million from AF corporation to the court below, under the pretext of scrap metal price for the victim C.

In the lower court’s judgment, around February 2, 2012, the Defendant and AH Co., Ltd. entered into an agreement with the lower court to sell scrap metal generated at the site of the removal work to the Defendant. From April 2, 2012 to May 5, 2012, it was impossible to supply scrap metal to the Defendant due to the discontinuance of construction work in violation of the AF

(3) The above construction work shall be made by the victim twice from the defendant.