The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant made the victim’s instant gold neck or the gold purchased by the victim with quasi-indembing and melting it as it is, thereby creating a counter-influence of the Defendant’s net gold 9.5% or more to the victim.

there is no fact that such act was conducted.

In particular, the defendant has indicated that he is against the gold bar, which is made of the gold bar made by the victim, and the victim has been operating a gold bar from around 2009, so he is called a specialist in gold field.

Even if there was the above indication, there was no doubt that the defendant was aware of the 99.9% net gold, and in light of the transaction method between the defendant and the victim, general gold transaction practices, etc., there was the intent to commit the crime of defraudation by the defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is from September 3, 2011, the Defendant borrowed a part of the “F” space in the third public forum in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, E, and produced and supplied the victim a gold (or gold manufactured in gold products by processing once or more times) from the victim G or cash, and supplied it to the victim.

① On January 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed an act as if he/she would produce a counter-fluorial 9.9% of the net gold 10 gold fluor from the injured party on January 21, 2014; (b) received 10 gold fluor from the injured party on January 21, 2014; and (c) delivered the injured party to the “F” on January 25, 2014; and (b) received 1780,000 won in cash equivalent to 10,000 won in cash from the injured party on January 25, 2014; and (d) made ten fluoral fluor from the said “F” on January 28, 2014.

However, the defendant's net 9.3% above 99.3%, or the above 1780,000 won.