The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On July 1, 2015, the Defendant, at around 01:00 on July 1, 2015, at the “D” alcohol house operated by the Defendant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the victim E (47:3) (a) the building owner would raise the deposit amount of KRW 15 million.

The loan of KRW 15 million shall be repaid until July 31, 2015.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, there was no property owned by the Defendant, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged person due to lack of income level, there was no intention or ability to repay it.

Around July 3, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 15 million from the victim, to the “G” account in the name of the lessor F, from the victim, and acquired it by defrauded.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002).

The loan of KRW 15 million shall be repaid until July 31, 2015.

A witness E’s statement in this court and in an investigative agency, consistent with the fact that he deceptioned E, is difficult to believe (E was aware that the Defendant was in a situation that the investigative agency made the Defendant’s store from May 2015 and was about to pay KRW 15 million with the deposit and premium by arranging the store.

In the statement of E, it is very unusual that the building owner increases the deposit by two times the existing amount, and E, on September 1, 2015, "A is replaced by fraud, and on July 2, 2015, the deposit will be treated as monthly income.