beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) around October 2009, at the F Office located near the E Station located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim G is a new I new construction work entrusted to the head of H Co., Ltd. as the head of the headquarters; (b) if the Defendant subsidized the cost of KRW 20 million, he/she will be ordered to perform the construction work on the facility and pay the profits of the construction work.
The phrase “ makes a false statement.”
However, the Defendant was not the head of H Co., Ltd., and there was no fact that the Defendant was delegated by the said Co., Ltd. with the authority to conclude the I New Construction Contract, and thus, even if concluding a subcontract with the victim for the electricity and installation works of the I Co., Ltd., the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the injured party, the Defendant had the victim proceed with the said electricity and installation works and did not have the intent
The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received a total of KRW 20 million, including one copy of the KRW 10 million check around December 9, 2009 and ten copies of the KRW 10 million check from the victim.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. In a criminal trial on the market, criminal facts must be found based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201, etc.). In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was not the head of the H stock company as shown in the facts charged, and that the defendant was not the head of the H stock company and was delegated with the authority to conclude a new construction contract by the said company.
(i) On June 2009 H.W.