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

1. On September 22, 2015, the Defendant, at the office of the representative director D, the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “victim”) in Gangseo-gu, said that “The Defendant falsely stated that “The Defendant would change KRW 50,000,000,000, which is part of the down payment KRW 150,000,000, out of the office of the representative director D’s office.”

However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to grant the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site even if the Defendant received part of the down payment from the damaged company because the Defendant was not authorized by F with respect to the restaurant operating right contract.

On September 23, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the damaged company, received KRW 50 million from the victimized company to the H bank account under the name of G corporation as the down payment, and acquired it by fraud.

2. Determination

A. According to evidence, the injured company entered into a contract with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) operated by the Defendant on September 22, 2015, under which G entered into a down payment of KRW 150,000,000,000, which was executed by F in Pyeongtaek-si I (hereinafter “right to operate a restaurant”) in the E-type apartment construction project site conducted by H in Pyeongtaek-si I. On September 23, 2015, and remitted KRW 50,000,000,000 to G account deposit, which is part of the down payment, to G on September 23, 2015. However, the injured company’s failure to perform the said contract can be recognized as having failed to obtain the right to operate the restaurant.

B. However, as seen below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize the facts charged that the defendant deceivings the damaged company, and that in this context, the defendant defrauds 50 million won as part of the contract deposit from the victimized company.

1) In the facts charged, “The Defendant did not have been authorized by F to operate a restaurant, and even if he received part of the down payment from the victimized company, he/she would have the intention or ability to allow the victimized company to operate the restaurant at the construction site.