The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged was around 02:0 on May 14, 2018, the Defendant arranged a loan by having two customers D and E contact with the Defendant on his/her name-free singing room at the Manan-si B and the 1st underground floor.

2. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). The Defendant consistently denied the charges by consistently denying the Defendant’s receipt of the request for delivery of the credit amount of KRW 120,000,000 from E at the time of the instant case, including KRW 100,000 and KRW 20,000,000,000,000, and did not receive the said request from E, and not receive the said request from E, etc.

On the other hand, police officers dispatched to the site failed to discover persons presumed to have been singing, and there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in addition to the statements of D and E.

However, D and E have made a statement to the effect that “the person visited the singing room to play the singing while drinking alcohol.” However, D and E reported 112 that “the person is running the singing room in the street,” contrary to its purpose. It is difficult to find any motive or reason to explain the contradictory acts.

In addition, D was in the toilet together with E, but the voice of the Defendant called soon outside, and the voice of the Defendant was immediately going out, and it was the sound to move out of E, and there is a 3 door of the toilet with E, and there is no way to get out of all.