2012No507 Violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), fraud

○○0, Bags

Daejeon

Suwon-si of reference domicile

Defendant

Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the whole of which is a trial

A legal entity or vice versa;

Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Attorney Park Jong-soo

C&A, a legal entity

Attorney Kim Jong-soo in charge

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Gohap4 Decided November 9, 2012

July 8, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

1) As to the facts constituting the crimes of subparagraphs 1 through 3 of the holding of the court below

The amount derived from the facts of the crime set forth in the 1 through 3 of the decision of the court below is not the loan or the purchase price, but the complainant paid the amount as the support payment for the defendant (1) or the acquisition price of the dives art gallery (a rejection of the crime of fraud or fraud)

2) As to the crime No. 4 of the judgment of the court below

It was true that the defendant received KRW 200 million from the complainant, but it was received from the complainant, not from the founder of the knives culture group, from the 800 knives that the complainant decided to purchase from the defendant (the denial of the knives act).

B. Legal principles

The receipt of KRW 600 million from the crime of No. 1 of the decision of the court below is considered as a separate fraud, and it cannot be considered as a comprehensive crime, so the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes shall not be applied.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the crime No. 1 of the decision of the court below (the crime of defraudation of KRW 600 million related to the return of investment)

1) Summary of the facts charged

A) The fraud of KRW 300 million around June 25, 2005

Around June 25, 2005, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the complainant, the Defendant did not intend to use it for the purpose of returning the money invested by KimO, and did not have the intent or ability to repay it, the Defendant, stating, “in order to produce Kim 00 that 300 million won was invested at the time of the establishment of the knive art gallery, the Defendant borrowed 300 million won from the complainant to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant on the loan from June 27, 2005.” In addition, the Defendant acquired 30 million won from the complainant on the loan from June 27, 2005.

B) The acquisition by fraud of KRW 300 million at the end of October 2005

Even if the defendant borrowed money from the complainant at the end of October 2005, the defendant did not intend to use it for the purpose of return of Kim00's contribution, and even if there was no intention or ability to change it for the same reason as the above paragraph (a), the defendant acquired money by borrowing KRW 300 million from the complainant on October 24, 2005, stating that "the complainant was able to return the contribution to Kim00, and the money borrowed at the last time was used in another place because there was an urgent room, and again, it was a difference in lending KRW 300 million."

2) The defendant's lawsuit

Although it is recognized that the defendant received KRW 600 million from the defendant twice as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is not borrowed money, but it is received as a support payment or an art gallery acquisition fee, and since he actually transferred knives to the complainant, it is not true that the complainant deceivings the complainant, and the above money is not taken over.

3) The judgment of the court below

A) The complainant’s statement is very specific and consistent with the material part of the Defendant’s first accumulation of friendship, the use of the borrowed money, and the situation at the time of the next use, and it is difficult for the complainant to find out reasons for the Defendant to make a false statement. As such, the complainant’s statement that the Defendant lent KRW 600 million to the Defendant is sufficiently recognizable.

B) In full view of the following circumstances in the statements made by the complainants in the investigative agency and the court, it can be recognized that the Defendant borrowed not only from the complainants after 60 million won (hereinafter “instant KRW 600 million”) but also from the complainants.

① It is difficult to understand that the complainant provided support for KRW 300 million, without any consideration, to the extent that he/she became aware of the fact that he/she became aware of the Defendant, and to support another KRW 300 million only for three months.

② In light of the fact that when the complainant paid KRW 600 million to the Defendant, it is difficult to deem that the complainant paid the larger amount of KRW 600 million as a support payment.

③ The amount of KRW 300 million paid by the complainant on October 24, 2005 was paid by the complainant by selling a commercial building owned by him and paying any balance as soon as the initial payment date is earlier than the outstanding payment date, and there is no reason to support the Defendant even when he/she paid the balance in advance.

④ On September 9, 2006, the complainant presented to the Defendant “the details of transfer and disbursement of ○○ Dogggs” and demanded the Defendant to return KRW 2.197.55 million including the above KRW 600 million. If the above KRW 600 million was the support money, the complainant did not demand the Defendant to return it.

⑤ Park △△△△ stated to the effect that “A certain opinion made a contribution to the KRW 00 million.” However, the statement made by Park △△△△ was merely a part of the Defendant, and thus does not have any meaning to the Defendant’s statement.

④ Although the above 600 million won was not prepared, there was no agreement on the interest or the due date for repayment, in a monetary loan relationship, the loan certificate was prepared at all times and the interest is not fixed. Accordingly, the complainant stated that "the defendant is unable to keep a deed, but he is unable to make a false statement because he had no certificate," and that he borrowed money without a loan certificate because of the existence of objective data and the balance of check transactions, even if he transfers money to a bank, he/she borrowed money with her belief that he/she would have borrowed money. In light of the relationship between the defendant and his/her believers, the above statement is fully acceptable.

7) On October 24, 2005, the complainant entered “Negrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgr

4) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) As to the credibility of the complainant’s statement

The complainant has negotiated between the defendant and the investigative agency over a long period of five years from the date of receiving money, and filed a complaint with the investigative agency through certain preparation, such as collection of related materials and evidence, and there is an urgent conflict between the two parties in the civil litigation (Seoul Daejeon District Court 201Gahap9697, Daejeon District Court 201Gahap 9697, the claim for damages of this case), and even if the statement of the complainant has the old body and consistency, the credibility thereof shall be determined carefully by taking into account whether it is consistent with objective evidence or circumstances.2)

Furthermore, in light of the fact that the accusation in the instant case was delayed at the time of over five years from the date of receiving money and that there was a large number of money transactions between the Defendant, the memory of the complainant can be removed.

In addition, although the defendant's appeal is found to be somewhat inconsistent in the specific part, it is highly probable that the five-year period has passed to undergo an examination at the time of memory, and thus, the credibility of the whole defense is readily denied due to a minor change in the statement. Also, according to the record, the defendant should not regard it as well, and the record, the defendant maintains consistency in the statement as a substitute.

Therefore, in order to recognize the criminal liability of the defendant in this case, it is more important to confirm whether the facts charged are supported by objective evidence or evidence.

B) As to the failure to prepare a certificate of borrowing

In light of the fact that the loan certificate was not prepared with respect to the KRW 600 million, there is no clear evidence supporting the fact that the above money is a loan. Moreover, the period of repayment and interest did not have been determined from the complaint delivery fraud to the trial court, and only stated that "the legal interest was thought to have been given by himself/herself," and in detail, it is not clear whether the purport of the loan is explicitly or implicitly expressed.

In addition, it is consistent with the grammatic theory to interpret that the phrase “the 300 million won thickness” stated in the written statement of the complainant is subordinate without compensation. In order to interpret that these words are being used to indicate the leased facts, there is an additional circumstance to support it, and there is no objective evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt other than the statement of the complainant against the defendant's statement and the statement of the complainant.

The complainant stated that he had lent money without a loan certificate due to the existence of objective data and the difference in the description of check because he could not borrow money when he transfers money to a bank. However, as seen below, the defendant prepared a sales contract for the Daejeon Pung-dong 1***** the former 651m of land (hereinafter referred to as "Songdong 1** * *) and a loan certificate (the investigation record No. 549 of the investigation record) in his own name, and the subsequent loan certificate (the investigation record No. 549 of the investigation record) on August 9, 2007, the complainant did not prepare a simple agreement to transfer two lots of land at the request of the complainant on August 9, 2007 (the investigation record No. 334 of the investigation record) and the first agreement to promise to transfer money (the first agreement to give and receive donations).

C) As to the documents stating that “the remittance and disbursement of ○○ pastors prepared by the complainants” is “the details of the remittance and disbursement”

Around September 9, 2006, the complainant prepared and presented the document that the Defendant “○○ Doggs Transfer and Expenditure Details” and demanded the return of the money paid to the Defendant. The above document only stated that the instant KRW 600 million is a simple remittance, but does not state that the lending was made, and that the amount of KRW 2.1975 million paid to the Defendant is an investment.”

In light of these contents, it is not easy to have sure that the KRW 600 million in this case is a kind of loan under the pretext of loan.

D) Explanation of the complainant on the contents of the agreement dated August 9, 2007

According to the records, on August 9, 2007, the defendant set up the lower part of the parking lot at the 19th YYYYYY 19 Mao-dong and the 19th Mao-dong site on August 9, 2007, "The defendant issued to the complainant a letter of agreement stating "........"

However, in light of the fact that the defendant uses the expression "all financial support" in the above agreement, and that with respect to the amount of KRW 2.19755 million that the complainant paid to the defendant with the loan or the purchase-price at the time of the preparation of the above agreement, no disposal document, such as the loan certificate or the sales-price, is required to deliver such document to the defendant actively or there is no resistance against the delivery of only the above agreement, there is room to interpret the above "cost after the financial support" as referring to the whole amount paid to the defendant until the time including the amount of KRW 60 million in this case, and therefore, the above agreement can be a major documentary basis corresponding to the defendant's lawsuit.

E) As to the use of the instant KRW 600 million for the acquisition price of the dives art gallery

Around September 2005 or around February 2, 2006 (the Defendant’s assertion) the complainant acquired knives of 4.4 billion won in total from the Defendant (the complainant’s statement). In this case, the complainant’s 600 million won was recognized as having been appropriated as part of the amount taken over from the knives of knives of knives of knives of knives of 801, 1188-189)

Therefore, in light of the above circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the above KRW 600 million was the money of the nature of the borrowed money, such as the complainant's statement, but it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the defendant still reflects the amount supported by king in calculating the amount of boom's acquisition, although the defendant was in the name of the support fund, as in the first instance court's change, the amount was so much, but he was faced with the burden.

F) Whether the purpose of return of investment belongs to the purpose

The facts charged include a guide that the defendant belongs to the use of money received from the complainant. However, on June 30, 2005, the defendant returned the amount of KRW 200 million to the director of the △△△△△△△ on 100 million, and on November 10, 2005, the defendant returned the amount of KRW 100 million to the director KimO on 10,000,000 (the investigation record 245,246 pages), and it is confirmed that a considerable portion of the amount paid by the complainant was actually used for the return of the contribution.

Therefore, the possibility that the defendant mentioned Kim00 as a representative person of the investor can not be avoided because he was placed in the situation of returning KRW 300 million from the complainant on June 30, 2005 at the time of receiving the remittance from the complainant, and there is a possibility that he would not limit the purpose of use with the awareness that he would use it for the return of the contribution and other expenditure purposes. Therefore, there is no sufficient proof that the defendant belongs to the purpose of use.

G) Other grounds for conviction cited by the court below

(1) Although the court below deems that the complainant’s statement is consistent and consistent, it is hard to believe that it causes a reliance on it.

(2) The lower court deemed that the complainant was aware of the Defendant, and that there was no reason to support KRW 300 million in 1 month and 300 million in 30 million in 1 month and 300 million in 20 million in 3 months, but rather, it may be said that the complainant did not receive a certificate of borrowing by lending a large amount of money within the short time. As such, it is difficult to view such circumstance as a principal ground for conviction.

(3) In light of the fact that, at the time of the instant payment of KRW 60 million, the complainant did not seem to have paid a large amount of money as a support payment on account of the fact that the situation of the complainant was very good at the time of the payment of KRW 600 million, but the reasoning that it was impossible to provide support on the ground that there was a bad financial situation without any other grounds is insufficient. Furthermore, even if the complainant’s statement was based on the complainant’s statement, it is doubtful that, since September 2005, the complainant paid interest exceeding KRW 6 million per month on the loan free loans from financial institutions related to the knive art gallery, the complainant was able to pay the Defendant interest exceeding KRW 57 million, and the Defendant gifted the vehicle to be considered as a 15 million and issued a fine exceeding KRW 10 million on behalf of the Defendant, and that there was a lack of financial circumstances of the knives at the time of the said payment of money.

(4) The lower court, on October 24, 2005, cannot be deemed as a support payment solely on the ground that the complainant sold the commercial building building owned by the complainant and delivered money in advance of the initial payment date, but it is difficult to readily conclude that it is not a support payment solely on the ground that the complainant paid money by raising the complainant to pay.

(5) On September 9, 2006, the court below held that the complainant presented "the details of remittance and disbursement of Hegrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrggrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrg

(6) Other circumstances cited by the court below do not constitute the grounds for conviction in itself, or (Judgment of probative value of testimony of △△△△△△△), and the remainder, are insufficient to serve as the grounds for conviction for the same reasons as mentioned in the above-mentioned paragraphs (A) and (b), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of deception or fraud of the defendant.

H) Sub-decisions

Therefore, even though this part of the facts charged is without proof of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

B. As to the second crime of the judgment of the court below (1**-* Land purchase price fraud)

1) Summary of the facts charged

피고인은 고소인으로부터 매수대금 명목으로 돈을 받더라도 위 토지를 매수하여 고 소인의 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳐줄 의사가 없었고, 오히려 위 토지에 관하여 자 신의 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마칠 생각이었음에도, 2005. 10. 19 .경 고소인에게 " 대 전 유성구 화암동 15^ 일대 27,744평 부지 앞에 알 박힌 땅(화암동 1**-** 토지) 이 하 나 있어 내가 사고 싶었지만 사지 못했는데 최근에 부동산에 나왔다. 백 년에 한 번 만날 수 있는 귀한 땅이니 고소인이 사서 집을 지으면 좋겠다. 그린벨트지역이지만 2005. 12 . 30.경이면 그린벨트가 해제된다는 정보를 알고 있다. 그곳에 있는 주택을 포 함해서 2억 7,010만 원에 사 주겠으니 이를 매수하라."라고 말하여 이에 속은 고소인 으로부터 매매대금 등 명목으로 합계 2억 7,010만 원을 교부받아 이를 편취하였다 .

2) The defendant's lawsuit

The defendant has received KRW 270,010,00 from the complainant by soliciting the complainant to purchase land 1****, but since there is no reason to conduct the registration of ownership transfer as to the purchase price paid later, the defendant has completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name as to the above land because he did not agree that the purchase price will be appropriated for part of the acquisition price of the knifle art gallery, and the defendant did not deceiving the complainant without the intention to purchase the above land from the beginning.

3) The judgment of the court below

A) On October 19, 2005, the Defendant already concluded a sales contract on the land of the 1**--* the land of the 651m square meters (hereinafter referred to as "Teodong 1**-* the land") in his own name and paid the down payment to the complainant. However, on the same day, in light of the fact that the Defendant received the purchase price for the land from the complainant by concealing such circumstance and making the complainant purchase of the said land, the criminal intent of the Defendant is inferred, in light of the fact that he received the purchase price for land from the complainant.

B) The Defendant has no consistency in the process of concluding a contract in one’s own name with respect to the land 1****, and there is no credibility.

In addition, it is not persuasive in light of the fact that at the time of the above contract, the defendant himself/herself is highly likely to have the farmland ledger without the farmland ledger in order to obtain permission for a land transaction contract among the defendant's lawsuits, and that it was not impossible for the complainant to acquire the farmland ledger.

In addition, it is difficult to see that there was an imminent situation that makes it difficult to extend the date of the contract to the extent that the complainant should have entered into the contract even in the name of the defendant.

C) Even after the conclusion of a sales contract, the Defendant did not present a sales contract to the complainant and notified him of the essential contents of the sales contract, and thereafter, concealed such fact to the complainant even after completing the registration of ownership transfer under his own name. In light of this, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had an intention to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the said land from the beginning.

라 ) 피고인은 고소인에게 매매대금을 부풀려 말하고, 2005. 10 . 25. 고소인으로부터 2억 4,000만 원의 잔금을 지급받은 이후에도 실제 매도인 김▣▣에게는 한참 뒤인 2006. 9. 26.까지 4회에 걸쳐 2억 3,000만 원을 지급하였다. 이는 매매대금 전체에 관 한 피고인의 편취 범의를 추단케 한다.

마 ) 피고인은 위 매매계약 체결 이전인 2003. 7. 4. 동일한 매도인 김▣▣으로부터 화암동 1**-** 토지에 인접한 임야( 이른바 '다윗성' 토지의 기반이 됨 )를 매입하면서 위 화암동 1**-** 토지도 함께 매수하려 하였다가 김▣▣의 거절로 매수하지 못한 적 이 있으므로, 피고인에게 화암동 1**-** 토지를 취득하려고 하는 동기가 인정된다.

4) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) As to the credibility of the complainant and the defendant's statement

As seen earlier, it is difficult to entirely trust the complainant’s statement. However, it is true that the Defendant appears to cause somewhat confusion in the statement about the circumstances before and after the conclusion of a contract for the purchase and sale of a drug. However, this is a situation where the time when the statement was made goes more than five years from the date of conclusion of the contract for the sale and purchase, and thus the memory is not clear, and there is no special circumstance that the entire credibility of the statement should be rejected.

Therefore, in determining the existence of the charge in this part of the facts charged, it is reasonable to focus on whether there are parts supported by objective evidence rather than dependent on the statement of the complainant.

나 ) 화암동 1**-** 토지의 매도인 김▣▣의 확인서와 중개인김 의 진술에 관하

The statement made by the investigative agency, which had arranged for a sale and purchase contract of land 1**, was that the above sale and purchase contract was concluded in the name of the defendant, but the defendant was willing to buy to another person, and was premised on the transfer of registration to a third party.

또한 매도인 김▣▣은 2006. 9. 26. 피고인으로부터 잔금 2,000만 원을 수령하면서 피고인에게 "본 토지의 토지거래허가 사유로 인하여 등기 이전은 차후에 진행됨을 확 인하오며, 차후 등기권리자의 명의가 확정되거나, 등기원인 또는 이전을 요구할 시에는 즉시 등기이전에 관한 모든 여건에 대하여 이행하겠습니다. 이행은 즉시 이행하며, 본 문건의 확인을 위하여 김○○가 참관하였습니다. "라고 기재된 확인서를 작성하여 교부 한 바 있는데, 위 확인서 내용에 의하면 피고인이 처음부터 위 화암동 1**-** 토지를 자기 이름으로 등기할 목적을 가지고 있지는 않았을 가능성이 높다.

C) As to the circumstance that the money paid as the price for land sale was included in the price for the takeover of the diversous art gallery

The Defendant, while transferring dice art gallery to the complainant on March 2006, appropriated KRW 270,000,000,000,000,000 from the purchase price of land around 2006, 1***,000,000,000 from the purchase price of land (in the investigation record, 303, 582, 801, 1188-189). As such, there is a high possibility that the Defendant’s obligation pursuant to the contract for the purchase and sale of land may be extinguished due to the use of the purchase price of land to the purchase price of dice art gallery, and at least there is a considerable reason to believe that the Defendant is such.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the complainant renounced his acceptance and demanded the defendant to return the proceeds from September 2006 because he was unable to cope with the enemy who continues after the takeover of the knive art gallery, and even if there is a civil obligation to make the defendant complete the registration of ownership transfer on the land 1**-****, due to the cancellation of the agreement on the acquisition of the knives art gallery, it shall be determined at the time of acquiring the property. Thus, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant had the intention to commit the crime of fraud at the time of receiving the purchase price.

D) Whether the complainant requested the transfer of registration

On September 9, 2006, at the time when the complainant decided to give up the operation of the dump art gallery, the complainant presented to the defendant a document stating that "the details of the payments made between the defendant, including the purchase price of 1****** the purchase price of the land," which is a total of 2.11 billion won, 2.1066 million won, and demanded signature and payment. In light of these circumstances, the complainant requested the return of money paid to the defendant after the renunciation of operation of the dump art gallery, 1********** in relation to the land, and there is a high probability that the defendant was aware that the issue of the transfer of registration was extinguished by such demand for money.4)

E) Other circumstances cited by the court below as the grounds for finding guilty

(1) Whether the defendant concealed the fact of the sales contract and solicits the complainant to purchase or sell it

In light of the fact that the defendant had concealed the circumstances in which he had already concluded a sales contract in his own name and solicited the complainant to purchase, the court below deemed the grounds for recognizing the criminal defendant's fraud, but in light of the fact that the complainant's first day on October 19, 2005, stating that "I ambied land with the upper upper end" was "I ambied with the thickness of 26 million won (10 million won for the introduction fee)", the defendant stated that "I ambied with the upper end of 197 square meters (1 million won for the introduction fee)", it is natural to view that the defendant referred to the fact that the complainant recommended the complainant on October 19, 2005 to purchase the land 1**** The purchase of the land and had already concluded the sales contract on that day.5)

(2) As to the date of issuance of aerial photography photographs

The court below found that the criminal defendant's deception was issued to the complainant on November 29, 2006 and November 3, 2007, 1*-*** because he did not notify the complainant of the main contents of the sales contract, such as the purchase and sale contract, including the land lot number, due to the criminal intention of the criminal defendant's defraudation, that he was not informed of the main contents of the contract.

However, it is true that the photograph of the aerial photography attached to the record was written on November 29, 2006 and November 3, 2007 (in the face of 662, 663). However, the above date of the recording refers to the date of taking the above pictures, and it cannot be deemed that this is the date on which this A was issued. The date when this A received the photograph was taken shall be deemed to be April 22, 201, as in the time when it was taken in the interview of the Daejeon Metropolitan City in Daejeon Metropolitan City (in the face of 934 pages), and this is the time when the complainant took four years or more from the date when he waived the taking over of the knive art gallery (in the face of 934 pages).

In other words, these circumstances merely require only the return of money for a considerable period of time after the complainant renounced the takeover of knives, and do not require the transfer of land ***-**, and according to this, it can be seen that the defendant is judged that the obligation to transfer the registration of the complainant was extinguished, and the reasoning of the court below in this part is appropriate.

(2) As to the existence of farmland ledger

According to the records, on February 6, 2003, the defendant acquired the right to own 6,488m of Seosung-dong 19.2.6. The land category of the above land is "the answer classified as farmland", and there seems to be considerably high possibility that the farmland ledger under the name of the defendant was established at the time of the conclusion of the contract for sale and purchase of land 1**-*** even according to the statement of the broker, it is the purport that the farmland ledger was established at the time of the above contract for sale and purchase (591 pages of investigation record) and on the other hand, there is no objective evidence verifying whether the complainant had the farmland ledger established at the time of the above contract for sale and purchase.

In addition, in light of the fact that in order to obtain permission for a land transaction contract as to the land (farmland) around October 2005, when a sales contract was concluded, it is necessary to enter into a sale contract under the name of the purchaser, in principle, if it is not for the purpose of cultivation of facilities (see, e.g., Investigation Records 951). In addition, it cannot be deemed that the conclusion of a sale contract under the name of the defendant with a high possibility of holding the farmland ledger is entirely inconsistent with the doctrine.

(3) The fact that the defendant received money from the complainant in the name of the purchase price and paid it to every Do Governor immediately, and that there is a need to acquire land ***--* The fact that there is a need to acquire land from the complainant is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had had the intention to acquire the purchase price from the complainant 1**-** at the time of receiving the purchase price of land from the complainant, and there is no reason to determine otherwise.

F) Sub-decisions

Therefore, even though there is no proof of criminal facts as to this part of the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's assertion pointing this out has merit.

C. As to the third crime in the holding of the court below (the point of obtaining by deceit the purchase price of land 190, 191)

1) Summary of the facts charged

Around December 5, 2005, the Defendant had no capacity to transfer the ownership of two parcels of land in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-si, but tried to stop the building on two lots of land (hereinafter referred to as "Yeongdong-dong 190, 190, 199) including the land 1,501 square meters owned in the Republic of Korea" (hereinafter referred to as "Seongdong-dong 190, 190, 199). On the other hand, the Defendant was unable to do so. On the other hand, the Defendant would be entitled to KRW 760,000,000,000,000 for the above five years before the purchase price. On the other hand, the Defendant would be 70,000,000,000 won for the above land and would be 70,000,000,000 won for the above land to be 130,000,000 square of land.

2) The defendant's lawsuit

On December 9, 2005, the Defendant received KRW 760 million from the complainant (hereinafter “instant KRW 760 million”). However, the Defendant did not enter into a sales contract with the complainant on two lots of land (the name of the Defendant was purchased on the church’s account) such as Daejeon Seodong-dong 19m2, Seosung-dong 19m2, Seosung-dong 19m2, 19m2, and 19m2, 1501m2, and it was not received as the purchase price, and the Defendant was paid as the purchase price, and the Defendant was paid as the purchase price, and in fact, he did not belong to the complainant because he transferred her scam to the complainant and transferred his sculle art gallery.

3) The judgment of the court below

A) As to the receipt of money under the pretext of receipt of money

① The Defendant’s vindication made a statement that was received as payment for the takeover of dumnale art gallery and was appropriated as payment for the takeover of dumnale art gallery, and thus, it is difficult to believe that it is not consistent. On the other hand, the complainant’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged is specific, consistent, and reliable.

② On December 5, 2005, among the day-to-day books prepared by the complainant, “Igred son’s clothes, tebrebrebre-centered 2,200 square meters.” The original design (frans son) was completed for the distribution of weddings, and the members wished to purchase approximately KRW 76,00 million purchase with a thickness of 5 years to purchase approximately KRW 760,000,000 for the purchase of new greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greged greg.

③ 고소인이 작성한 일기장에는 2005. 12. 17.까지의 내용 중 ◎◎미술관 인수에 관한 내용이 전혀 기재되어 있지 않은 반면 , 2006. 2. 10. 작성한 수첩 내용에 비로소 ' 미술관 양도 말씀', 같은 달 17. 작성한 수첩 내용에 '미술관 양도(44억)', 같은 달 27. 작성한 수첩 내용에 '미술관 양도 44억 중(16.3억 + 11.2억 김00 2 김▲ ▲ 2 임 ~ ~ 2 .5억) 합 34억 잔금 10억 중 1억 속히 지급요청. 3년 내 해결되도록 결정."이라고 기 재되어 있어 2006. 2. 경 ◎◎미술관 인수에 관한 논의가 처음 시작되었다는 고소인 진 술의 신빙성을 뒷받침한다.

④ The purport of the lower court’s legal statement in Glaver is that: (a) the complainant intended to take over knick art galleries is around Feb. 2, 2006; and (b) the Defendant was made with the money that had been entered at least KRW 1.6 billion from 1.7 billion to 1.7 billion; and (c) the Defendant determined to take over the art gallery at his own will, which corresponds to the complainant’s statement.

⑤ In a situation where the complainant’s financial situation is not good, it is difficult to obtain the Defendant’s free will to receive most of the money and to support the Defendant with money worth KRW 760,000,000 from most of the money, and at the time of receipt of money, there was no agreement on the takeover of the knives, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s defense that the money was appropriated as part of

B) Whether the person has the ability to make payment or not.

(1) The defendant purchased 100 million won or more at the time of filing a complaint on the land 19*, 190, 191, 300 million won or more at the time of filing a complaint, and tried to build a new church after obtaining a loan of 90 million won to the above land from the defendant, but the defendant demanded the return of the church site (Evidence 31 to 43, 1,084-1, 091) to the 100,000,000,000 won or more at the time of filing a complaint on the 106,000,000,000 won or more at the time of 105,000,000,000 won or more at the time of 10,000,000 won or more at the time of 10,000,000 won or more at the time of 2,000,000 won or more at the time of the complaint.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

(A) lack of objective evidence;

A sales contract prepared on the land between the complainant and the defendant 19 m. 19 m., 191 m. and 191 m. The complainant's work is stated that the complainant purchased the land from the defendant. However, as long as the complainant's statement and the defendant's statement are consistent in certain parts, it is difficult to see that the complainant's statement and the contents of the discussion and conversation entered between the complainant and the defendant are accurately reflected, and therefore, the value of evidence should be limited.

B) Possibility of being received as the price for taking over a diversal art gallery

Of the land of the 19th, 191, the 190-dong, the complainant, the object of which is the purchase and sale contract, the land of the 191-dong, the 190-dong, the 190-dong, the 190-dong, the 190-dong, includes part of the land of the clive art gallery, and the contract (in the case of the investigation record 303 9) indicating the transaction purpose of the acquisition contract of the live art gallery, the land of the 19-dong, the 190-dong, the 190-dong, the 190-dong, the 191-dong, the 19-dong and the 190-dong, the 190

In addition, the complainant was issued a cadastral map at the same time with the above land around December 20, 2005, when he remitted the amount of KRW 760 million in the instant case, and around December 20, 2005, the complainant was issued with the above land as well as the land of the 19th, Dongdong, which is forming the site of the dives art gallery. However, the situation seems to be more consistent with the possibility that the said money may be seen as the acquisition price of the dives art gallery.

C) The reason why the registration was not transferred

It is acknowledged that the above money was actually appropriated to the acquisition price of the knives art gallery at the time of payment of KRW 760 million, apart from what was the name of the acquisition price of the knives art gallery (the investigation record, 303 pages, 801 pages, 118-189 pages).

Therefore, even if the sales contract on the land between the defendant and the complainant around December 2005, which was around the time when the defendant paid the above money as stated in the complainant's statement, was concluded, the above money was appropriated for the acquisition price of the dump art gallery, and the above sales contract became invalid due to the ex post facto circumstances, i.e., the correction contract on the dump art gallery's acquisition, or there is a high possibility that the defendant was aware that the above sales contract was agreed to terminate the validity of the above sales contract between the complainant and the complainant.

In addition, even if the complainant finally renounced the takeover of the knives art gallery around September 2006, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the complainant bears the duty of ownership transfer registration on the land 19 Dom 19, 191, or can substitute the obligation for the obligation to return money. It is also difficult to expect that the defendant is aware that he/she only bears the obligation to return money. It is not possible that the defendant is aware that he/she only bears the obligation to return money.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no ownership transfer registration for the land 19 YY and 191 YY in the future of the complainants, and that such circumstance can not be a basis for recognizing the defendant's criminal intent at the time of receiving the above KRW 760 million.

D) As to the point at which discussions on the takeover of the diversal art gallery were held

The lower court explained to the effect that, at the time of December 2005, the amount of KRW 760,000,000 was paid to 760,000,000, based on various circumstances, the aforementioned KRW 760,000 cannot be trusted with the Defendant’s change of the acquisition price of knive art galleries, in light of various circumstances.

On September 2005, the Defendant argued to the effect that there was an agreement on the takeover of the knives art gallery, and the witness Kim ○ testified to the effect that the acceptance of the knives art gallery was not discussed at the time of December 2005, and therefore, it is against the Defendant’s defense and consistent with the complainant’s position. However, the above Kim ○ stated the facts as the knives of the complainant, and thus, it is not worth being admitted as evidence.

Rather, from September 2005 to August 2006, the complainant made a substitute payment of interest on loans borne by the knives art gallery, and from around 11, 2006, the situation where the above interest payment had been continued until August 2006, her last resort to operation of the knives art gallery), and from September 25, 2005, the complainant stated the content of the Gat & Relilition group (12). In light of the situation that the complainant did not indicate the acquisition of the knives by December 17, 2005, on the part of the complainant, there was no indication on the knives of the knives art gallery by December 17, 2005, in view of the fact that the complainant started to bear interest on the knives art gallery acquisition from around September 2005 to around 13, 200.

E) As to "a quasi-agreement prepared by the defendant"

According to the "Agreement prepared by the defendant at the request of the complainant on August 9, 2007" (Accomp. 334 of an investigation record), according to the "Agreement" (Accomp. 334 of an investigation record), the land at the bottom of the present parking lot No. 190, Sung-gu, Sungdong-dong, 190 and the site No. 196, 19, is set up. "....." In other words, in light of the provisions of the above Agreement, the transfer contract on the land between the defendant and the complainant is likely to be concluded only at the time when one year or more elapsed from the date when the complainant remitted the amount of KRW 760,00,000 to the defendant, which is not supported by the purchase price of the land of the defendant 14,00,000 Wondong-dong, 190 and 191.

F) As to the "Plan for Native Living Facilities" issued by the Defendant

According to evidence, it is recognized that the defendant issued "the plan for ‘the plan for the neighborhood living facilities (the investigation record 1024, 1025, 1250 to 1257)' to the complainant. The complainant stated that the defendant issued the above plan as a letter of commitment that the defendant entered into a sales contract for the land 19 YY and 191.

According to the complainant's statement, the defendant is likely to deliver the above plan to the complainant (the investigative record 1178 pages), but the land of 190, 190, 19, 19, is adjacent to the victim's statement. In light of the fact that the complainant's acquisition contract includes part of the site of the knive art gallery and also included in the subject matter taken over, the complainant's acquisition contract of the knive art gallery's knive art gallery's knives can naturally be useful materials. Thus, the defendant's delivery of the above plan to the complainant is inconsistent with the fact that the complainant decided to take over the entire knive art gallery as the defendant's change. Thus, the defendant's rejection of the defendant's change can not be a ground.

G) Regarding the complainant’s financial standing

The court below stated that it is difficult for the complainant to receive most of the money from the complainants to support the defendant with the amount of KRW 760,000,000 from most of the money in the circumstances where the circumstance of the fund is not good. However, the defendant's main change is not simple support fund, but the defendant's main change is received as the price for taking over the knive art gallery, so it is not sufficient to dismiss the defendant's change.

H) Whether the Defendant had no intention or ability to register the transfer of ownership

In light of the fact that the Defendant prepared and delivered to the complainant an application for permission for land transaction contract and a power of attorney, etc. around May 2006, for the purpose of transferring ownership to the complainant about the whole land of 19*, 190, 191, the land of clockal art gallery site (the investigation record 290-295 pages), it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not intend to register the ownership of the Defendant.

The complainant stated that there was a problem that the land 190, 191 was registered as the land annexed to the art gallery and the transfer of the registration was interrupted (577 pages). However, according to the response to the request from the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan Government for investigation cooperation (Investigation Records 951, 952 pages) by the head of the Gu of the Daejeon Metropolitan City (Investigation Records 951, 952 pages), it was possible to apply for land transaction permission on the land 191, 191, 190, 191, 191, 190, 191, 191, 190, 190, 191, 190, 191, 190, 190, 190, 190, 190, 190, 190, 2000, 2000, 2006, 2016, 16,2006).

Therefore, there is no ground to acknowledge that the defendant had no ability to exercise ownership transfer, etc. or had been aware of the above two parcels of land at the time of the receipt of this part.

H) As to the circumstances cited by the lower court in relation to the ability to repay and intent to repay

The facts charged purport that the defendant received money from the complainant without the intention or ability to accept the registration of ownership transfer. The defendant, cited by the court below, was urgently required to refund money against the previous supervision school council at the time of the case, and the defendant's intention to pay the purchase price of land belongs to the complainant cannot be viewed as an argument to clarify that the defendant did not have any intention or ability to accept the registration of ownership transfer.

In addition, the fact that the defendant did not speak of the circumstances in which part of the land is assigned as the site of the art gallery, the problem of access road and the issue of whether the access road is resolved and the security is not transferred, and that the defendant found the complainant on February 10, 2006, two months after the defendant sold the land and asked the complainant to take over the knive art gallery and request the knives to take over the knives of the knives, there is a lack of grounds that the defendant belongs to such contents.

Furthermore, without the consent of the complainant on June 25, 2007, the defendant created a common collateral mortgage on the land 19*, 190,191, and in this case, the amount of 760,000,000 won for the acquisition of the knive art gallery was already appropriated for the amount of the knive art gallery, and the complainant abandoned the knive art gallery, and it is not clear whether the complainant demanded the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant at that time. Thus, the defendant's establishment of a security right to the land without the consent of the complainant on October 2005 cannot be viewed as the ground that the defendant had no intent or ability to transfer the ownership of the land at the time of receiving the kniveian-dong 190,191.

I) Sub-determination

In full view of the above, the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the criminal intent of deception or deception by the defendant. Therefore, this part of the facts charged also does not prove the facts charged, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's assertion to point this out is with merit.

D. As to the crime No. 4 of the decision of the court below (the crime of defraudation of KRW 200 million related to the investment of the culture group)

1) Summary of the facts charged

피고인은 ◎◎문화그룹을 설립할 의사나 능력이 전혀 없음에도 2007. 11. 2. 경 고 소인에게 "이탈리아의 삐꼴로(소형 앤틱 자동차, 호텔, 마리나 사업), 예술품, 와인, 보 석 등과 이탈리아의 문화를 수입하여 판매하는 사업을 하기 위해 ◎◎문화그룹을 설립 할 계획이니 3억 원을 투자하라."라고 말하여 이에 속은 고소인으로부터 2007. 11. 19. 경 ◎◎문화그룹 출자금 명목으로 피고인의 농협 계좌로 2억 원을 송금받아 편취하였

2) The defendant's lawsuit

On November 19, 2007, the Defendant received 200 million won from the complainant to receive 800 million won in the name of the purchase money for the 800 Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slives, and actually received lives. Since the Defendant planned the establishment of the lives culture group, the Defendant did not defraud 200 million won in the name of

3) The judgment of the court below

The statement of the complainants that correspond to the facts charged is consistent with the belief, and ① on November 19, 2007, from among the pocketbooks prepared by the complainants, the statement of 200 million won or less is written as "the 206-12-O")" (the investigation record 333 pages), ② The statement of 200 million won or less from 10 million won from 20 million won from 1 bank, and the statement of 200 million won or less from 200 million won from 200 million won from 200 million won from 200 million won from 200 million won from 200 million won from 30 billion from 200 million from 20 million from 30 billion from 200 million from 30 million from 30 billion from 200 million from 200 million from 30 million from 200 million from 207.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) As to the evidence cited by the court below

(1) The statement of the complainant shall be made solely for the same reason as before, and shall also be examined as to whether the facts charged are supported by objective evidence.

② From among the circumstances cited as the grounds for conviction, the lower court stated on November 19, 2007 as “investment 200,000,1200,000 won (No. 333 of the investigation record)” on the part of the pocketbook prepared by the complainants (i.e., “O., 406-12- o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o.)

③ In addition, the note prepared by the wife of the complainant stated "20 million won from 19.19.19.20 million won from Haba Bank, 200 million won from Haba Bank, including 8,000 million won from Haba Bank, and 102,000 won per household (in investigation records, 475.75.). However, after the establishment of Maba Culture Group was not established, the defendant's statement was to cover KRW 200 million from Mad and 80,000,000,000 won from Mad and Mad, and Mad and Mad and 12,000,000,000 won from Mad and Mad and Mad and Mad and Mad and Mad and Mad and 19.19.19.207, the content of the above note appears to have been prepared for the purpose of arranging the position of the complainant later (the above Mad and 208.8.8.

B) As to other circumstances cited by the lower court

① 원심은 안●● 이 원심 법정에서 2007년 12월경 이탈리아 여행 중 피고인의 집에 잠시 머무르면서 고소인 부부를 만난 적이 있으며, 피고인이 이탈리아의 삐꼴로 예술품, 와인, 보석 이런 것들을 수입해 와서 국내에 판매하는 사업에 대해 말하며 , 자신에게도 참여를 권유하는 것을 들은 사실이 있다고 증언한 점을 유력한 정황증거로 보고 있다.

In light of the aforementioned testimony of the Baltry, it is true that the defendant could not be ruled out that he actually proposed a business proposal on the baltry cultural group ( regardless of the name of the name). However, he testified that he did not have any talk about the name of the baltry cultural group, and that the testimony of Baltry is confirmed only that the defendant had such business plan, and it is not sufficient to prove that the name of the 200 million won of this case, which the plaintiff sent to the defendant, was the investment for the establishment of the baltum cultural group.

② The lower court, on the ground that it is difficult to obtain the Defendant’s statement that he/she received the loan from the Defendant eight months prior to his/her entry into the Republic of Korea, and paid the whole amount of the over-the-counter loan in advance, is doubtful, but there is no clear evidence to dismiss the Defendant’s defense that the import saving vehicle would take eight months due to the lack of import saving, and thus, it cannot be a sufficient reason to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

③ Meanwhile, according to the records, the Defendant’s efforts to deliver dyde to the complainants by taking import procedures to actually deliver dyde the dyde to the complainants. Moreover, in light of the fact that the complainant stated that he offseted part of the price of KRW 120 million out of the instant KRW 200 million, the rate of collection (the complainant stated that the previous body price of dyde collection was KRW 370 million, and the Defendant alleged that the purchase price was KRW 250 million) is not specified, and that there is no contract specifying the purchase price. In addition, in light of the fact that the complainant separately paid the Defendant with dyde collection amount of KRW 250 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won to the dyde to the Republic of Korea, the complainant’s statement was partially appropriated for the collection of dye, and whether it is unreasonable for the Defendant’s prosecutor to dismiss the charges.

C) Sub-decisions

In full view of the above, since it is difficult to recognize that there was a criminal intent to commit deception or fraud in this part of the facts charged, it is difficult to recognize that there was a criminal intent to commit deception or fraud, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty shall be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act without proof of the facts charged,

3. Conclusion

The establishment of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the name of a prosecutor does not sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions are to be ensured, even if there is doubt of guilts, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201, etc.).

Although there are some inconsistencys in the investigation and trial process of the instant case, it appears that the whole is unreasonable or objective reasonableness has not been determined, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone did not reach the degree of conviction as to the charge.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the legal principles and the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

Parts of innocence

The summary of each of the facts charged in the instant case is as seen earlier, but it constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts on the grounds as seen earlier, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The principal offender (Presiding Judge)

Freeboard

Freeboard Kim Dong-dong

1) Although the defendant used the expression "support fund", the counsel at the trial of the political party recognized that this was money of a nature to return, the defendant used the expression "support fund";

This is separate from the defendant's defense at the investigative agency and the court below's decision, and the defense counsel received as the defendant's defense counsel at the first through third in the court below's decision.

The defendant, in the case of KRW 300 million remitted around June 25, 2005, on the legal fictional assertion, such as the total amount of the Won from an ex post facto point of view as the acquisition price of the knive art gallery

인의 수사기관 및 원심에서 진술에 따르더라도 당시까지 ◎ ◎ 미술관 인수에 관한 협의가 없었다는 점이 인정되므로, 변호인

In light of the fact that the above argument is inconsistent with objective facts, the defense counsel for the sake of such argument.

It seems that there is a high possibility of independent opinion. Accordingly, in order to accurately grasp the contents of the defendant's arguments, the investigation agency and the original trial of the defendant.

The arguments will be taken into account comprehensively.

2) In other words, the complainant cannot be deemed to have maintained a true attitude when considering the process of his statement. In other words, the complainants, as the investigative agency, have the power to do so.

Even though the money paid to the defendant as stated in the facts of crime 1 through 3 in the judgment, it was recognized that the money was appropriated as the amount for taking over a dives art

It was denied in the court of the first instance, and there are several changes in the contents of the statement about the process of identifying the location, etc. of the land**

The investigation records were 744,808,1142 pages.

3) On the contrary, the complainant's "financial support" under the above agreement means that the complainant's death on the part of the defendant amounting to KRW 57 million, 10 million.

It is stated that the fine of the National Assembly is paid in kind, 15 million won, 15 million won support, and other high-value gifts, etc.

4) The Defendant did not at all think that the investigative agency should make a registration to the complainant because the land was offset against the art gallery.

I stated, however, that I only sold the art gallery and returned money to the complainants ( several).

Private records 1191 pages.

5) In this case, the defendant cannot exclude the possibility that the defendant would be able to speak together with the contract under his own name, and as seen earlier, the defendant finally generated.

If it is recognized that the name of the contractor has an intention to vest in the ownership of a third party, the name of the contractor is large between two persons.

It could have been an important issue.

6) If the time of issuance of the aerial photography is the same as above, it is pending before and after the Defendant presented the document stating that the above “○○ wood” was transferred and disbursed.

There is a possibility that the transfer of registration would have been requested, and the defendant's transfer of ownership, etc. in his name with the permission of the complainant.

If a flag has been completed, it can be the basis for indirectly recognizing the intention of defraudation by the accused.

7) The land 190, 191, 190, 191, includes part of the land of the clockal art gallery or is closely connected to this, and the defendant contains the land;

In order for the Guar Supervisory Board to utilize it as the site of the church, it was assumed that the purchase price of KRW 690,000 was KRW 69,00,000.

It is the purport that some of the acceptance price received money and returned it to the church.

8) In other words, from the defendant's point of view, the defendant mentioned the issue of return of the price to be resolved between the church and the church prior to talking about the takeover of knick art gallery

There is a possibility that there is a possibility that the acceptance of knives, knives, art galleries and land trade can be opened without any one.

There is a possibility that the complainant could have talked, and there is a possibility that a conversation with other contents not revealed as evidence has been made, and the complainant 2

The intention of the defendant is deemed to have been the same as that of the contract for sale of the land.

shall not be subject to prosecution.

19) It was prepared by the complainant Kim, the knife of the complainant, and deemed to have been prepared for the purpose of transferring the title of the pertinent real estate after the acquisition of knif

(Court's oral statement of the appellant) The defendant and the complainant are not affixed.

10) In addition, even if there was a transfer agreement between the Defendant and the complainant on the land 190, 191, the Defendant’s subjective perception

In this regard, it is possible to accept the above two land as a part of the larger transaction, such as the agreement to underwrite diversous art gallery.

11) In light of the fact that the complainant remitted 200 million won to November 19, 2007, after the complainant renounced the takeover of the diversous art gallery as seen above (the complainant may do so)

◎문화그룹 출자금 명목이라고 진술하고 있고, 피고인은 올드와인 대금이라고 주장한다), 위와 같이 ◎◎미술관 인수를 포기

It is reasonable to see that the trust relationship between the defendant and the complainant was maintained at the time of such transaction. Therefore, the principal is paid in lieu of interest (the complainant).

If a statement was made at the level of support for the defendant, the complainant may give up the takeover of the diversous art gallery, even if the complainant gave up the takeover.

It is natural that lead(or lending) continues. Nevertheless, the complainant gives up his acceptance of dives dumnasium and bears interest burden on it.

However, it can be seen that the interest burden is due to the fact that he had a close relation with the takeover of the knives art gallery.

12) The EL Group was the name of the company where the complainant was established and promoted as the CEO, but the defense counsel stated that it was the above Art & Relition Act.

It is argued that he is in mind of the acceptance of boom art gallery, and it is difficult to see that there is no basis for such argument.

13) As seen earlier, the complainants constituted the main part of the site of the clive art gallery around December 20, 2005, as well as the land of 19 amba-dong, 191, as well as the land of the clive art gallery.

In light of the fact that the cadastral map was issued at the same time with respect to the land 19*, Manamdong, 19*, at least on December 2005, Manamble art gallery seal.

It is highly likely that discussions on the number have been actively conducted.

14) The complainant stated that the above agreement is unilaterally prepared by the defendant and should not be admitted as it is, but the complainant's station

Since he has signed the above documents, the probative value cannot be easily rejected.

15) Since the Defendant also entered neighborhood living facilities at 190, 191, the Defendant’s development and operation of a good item in connection with an art gallery

I stated that I would like to be mixed (1178 pages) and that I would like to think that I would like to do so, and from the defendant's point of view, I would like to consider the above neighborhood living facilities plan.

It is highly likely that they had been recovered in connection with the officer.

16) According to the statement of Nowon-gu, which was the deputy head of the time, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Mayor at that time entered the volume of KRW 1 billion.

the related budget was made to the flexible district, but there is no basis for the execution of the budget by the public officials in charge of the Seongbuk-gu without executing the budget.

Since there is a fact that the Daejeon Metropolitan City was returned to Daejeon Metropolitan City, it can be seen that the position of the Daejeon Metropolitan City was very positive.

17) As to the question in the court below's decision on delivery of complaint, "it is essential to write down not on that date but on that date," the amount of KRW 200 million is 20 million below.

There is also a loan, and it is written that there is no content of the loan." (Public trial records 138 pages).

18) Although the possibility that the defendant mentioned several times the name of the cultural group may not be ruled out, the complaint made shall not be 200 million won.

When four years have passed since the date of original remittance, so it is stated that the defendant's memory is stored and there is no mentioning such mentioning.

There are ridges. Even if the defendant mentioned the name of the knives culture group, he talked about it at a single idea level.

It is not clear whether the complainant or the complainant had a specific business plan and had a duty to provide it to the complainant, and the evidence still remains.

There may be no possibility that a conversation with various contents that could not be known would have been made. In other words, the foregoing pocketperson was made at the time of transfer.

It is difficult to see that the dialogue between the defendant and the complainant before and after it is accurately reflected.