The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to recognizing facts constituting a crime different from the facts charged without changing the indictment, thereby infringing the Defendant’s right of defense, and thereby in the process.

B. The Defendant, who is aware of the fact, is expected to purchase the land located in the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) awarded by the Defendant to the victim for KRW 130 million,00,000,000 for which the Defendant was awarded a successful bid, and can immediately sell the land and make profits from the purchase.

There is no fraudulent fact.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no concern about a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense against the misapprehension of the legal principles on the amendment of indictment, it does not violate the principle of disadvantage and disadvantage that the court recognizes facts different from the facts charged without going through the amendment of indictment to the extent identical to the facts charged, but if not, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts different from the facts charged are not proven without the amendment of indictment procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1185, May 23, 1997, etc.). In this case, the summary of the facts charged in this case is the date and place on which the defendant stated in the facts charged and

In other words, the facts acknowledged by the court below are that the defendant deceivings the victim through C, and the defendant deceptions the victim by delivering the above words to the victim through C. Thus, the defendant has the dispute over the facts charged while trying to prove that there was no fact that the victim had been delivered at the time and place stated in the facts charged in the court below's judgment, in order to recognize the facts charged, whether the defendant has made such remarks to C, whether C has received such remarks from the defendant and delivered such remarks to the victim, or whether C has made such remarks independently, but the defendant has to do so from the court below.