1. The defendant is innocent. 2. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is engaged in daily labor.

On September 25, 2008, the Defendant stated, “Around Sejong-si, the Defendant borrowed money to the victim D in order to pay for the harvest of a farmer.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not have any intention or ability to pay the money in the future.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim and received nine million won on the same day as the borrowed money from the victim, as well as by receiving nine million won on April 8, 2009, one million won on or around October 8, 2009, nine hundred thousand won on or around January 8, 2009, five hundred thousand won on or around March 19, 2010, five hundred thousand won on or around March 19, 2010, five hundred thousand won on or around April 21, 2010, five hundred thousand won on or around September 2, 2010, and five million won on or around September 2, 2010.

2. Determination

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that he borrowed money from the victim is true, and that he did not receive money from the victim, but he did not receive money from the typhoon for three consecutive years, but did not intend to commit the crime of defraudation.

B. Evidence that there is a crime in criminal procedure must be presented by the prosecutor, and the criminal facts must be proven by the judge so that the judge can have high probability beyond reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the defendant is suspected of guilt even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do327, Mar. 23, 1993; 2012Do6522, Aug. 23, 2012).

The main evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case includes each police interrogation protocol against the defendant and D police statements. Each police interrogation protocol against the defendant is inadmissible as the defendant denies its contents.

In addition, D is required to set the specific period for repayment at the time when it appears as a witness in this court and lends money to the defendant.