The Defendant stated that, even based on the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant was unable to operate the system since the beginning of his subscription to the Defendant’s number system on August 27, 2013, because the Defendant failed to pay the system properly. ② The Defendant paid the system and received the system normally after the payment of the system.

However, the defendant continued to reverse his statement on whom he had not paid the money properly by an investigative agency and operated a normal system by the defendant.

(3) According to the account transaction details submitted by the Defendant, the documents prepared and submitted by the Defendant later based on account transaction details, etc. after the indictment of this case cannot be seen as the transaction details related to the instant accounts. ④ The Defendant made a telephone conversation with the party asserting that he was a member of the instant fraternity, and all of the documents received a credit payment and a normal payment.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the statement is inconsistent with the statement of the defendant; and (b) the victim used a marina passbook to pay the fraternity money; and (c) the victim appears to have joined the instant system by actively soliciting the defendant; and (c) the fact that the defendant received money from the victim without the intention or ability to operate the system as a fraternity and used it for personal purposes is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

2. The lower court determined the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.