However, in fact, the house in the above D apartment was not owned by the defendant, was thought to repay the gambling debt with the money received from the victim, and there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if it was borrowed money from the victim due to the absence of any other property.

The Defendant received 65 million won from the victim as the borrowed money on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that he borrowed money from a person “E” while gambling in the Philippines, and that on May 24, 2010 at the request of “E,” the Defendant prepared a notarial deed and delivered money from the victim C. However, the Defendant did not deceive the victim or receive money from the victim.

3. Determination

A. Although the Defendant denied the content of the facts charged and the statement made by the person making the original statement in support thereof, if the Defendant was unable to attend the court and cross-examine by the Defendant, the Defendant is clearly aware of the exact purport of the statement even without cross-examination, and there are special circumstances to recognize the strong probative value in light of the form and content of the protocol, or may support the credibility and probative value of the statement made in such protocol, in light of the form and content of the protocol, as there is no doubt as to the content of the statement without cross-examination.