around May 17, 2011, when the Defendant installs a 'electric safety saving electricity' to the victim F in the “E” located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the electric charge is reduced by approximately 15% to 20%.

In addition, the electrical safety control will be over five years in the future.

“The purpose was to make a false statement.”

However, the Defendant was aware that even if the electric safety saving electric power was installed, it does not actually save electric charges, and there was no intention to control electric safety for five years.

Around May 19, 2011, the Defendant was granted 1.8 million won as the cost of electrical safety installation in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “E” located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D as the cost of electrical safety installation.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s profit, and this is also the same in case of recognizing the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6659, May 10, 2012). B.

On the other hand, there are statements and investigation reports (a summary order attached) in the police of the witness F and in the court as evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in this case.

However, in full view of all the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly examined by this Court, F’s statements at police and court.