The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

1. On February 2008, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If the garbage incineration facility business that has invested money in advance is well progress, 30 million won will be additionally invested in the garbage incineration facility business, and thereafter, 150 million won will be combined up to 150 million won of the borrowed money in advance,” to the victim E, who was aware of the usual sense, to the effect that “When the Defendant borrowed 30 million won in advance, he will make an additional investment in the garbage incineration facility business.”

However, in fact, even if the victim borrows money from the victim, he/she was planned to use money by lending money to the beneficiary of the defendant or using it as the cost of living, etc., without investing in the business of the garbage business site, and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to change it to the victim as an excess of his/her liability, such as bearing personal debt of 390

On February 18, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received money from the victim as remittance from the victim to the account in the name of the Defendant and acquired money from the victim under the name of the Defendant for the limit of KRW 29 million.

2. Determination

A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing the act of disposal, and thereby receiving property or pecuniary benefit. It must be related to deception, mistake, and property disposal (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 2000, etc.). Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake in another person, and whether such deception and disposal of property are in a relationship between such deception and disposal of property should be determined objectively and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act such as the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 198, etc.). In addition, the intent of deception by deception as an intentional act of such deception should be determined objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the situation of transaction, the other party’s knowledge, nature, experience, and occupation, unless the defendant does not confession.