The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant: (a) around October 2016, at the Defendant’s house located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant: (b) opened a deposit account, cash card, password, Internet banking ID, OTP card, etc. connected to the E Bank account (F) opened in the name of the LAB in the name of the LAB; and (c) opened the account to G for the purpose of selling it.

2. In light of the judgment, G’s statement as shown in the facts charged is difficult to believe it as it is for the following reasons, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant transferred access media to G for the purpose of sale.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

① At an investigative agency and this court, G received a total of two passbooks in the name of E bank passbook in the name of the defendant, and E bank passbook in the name of H in the agreement to sell the passbook from the defendant around October 2016, and around that time, G sold the passbook and provided the defendant with the full amount of the price in cash.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

② However, around October 2016, I issued to G a total of two passbooks and corporate bank passbooks in the name of H in the case where the Defendant was living together with the Internet banking company around October 2016.

The Defendant also lent the E Bank passbook to G on the same day upon the request of G upon the request of G to “a loan the only one month for the purpose of cash deposit and withdrawal.”

“The testimony to the effect that “the current situation at the time when the passbook was opened and the number of passbooks has been stated differently,” and “The investigation agency is currently being investigated in connection with the transfer of the passbook in the name of the company bank H.

“In the light of the I’s statement, the I’s statement that G received a total of three passbooks around October 2016 is reliable.

③ On the other hand, G was investigated by an investigative agency regarding “(State) transfer of passbook E in the name of H” and sold KRW 1.2 million after receipt of a passbook from one to two weeks, and was 1.2 million via the Defendant.

“On the other hand,” the witness in this case.