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

1. Around February 29, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is by deceiving the victim E who operated the said private teaching institute as a partner in the D office in Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocheon-gu, and the fact is that the deposit for the lease of the said private teaching institute is not more than 10 million won but not more than 50 million won, and the deposit for the lease of the said private teaching institute in the fourth to the third to the third to the third to the fourth to the effect that “it is necessary to pay directors expenses, and 100 million won, as the deposit for the lease of the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the third to the third to the third, and thus, by deceiving the victim each on the same day under the pretext of borrowing money.

2. According to the statement of the defendant in the first interrogation protocol of the prosecutor's office against the defendant, the witness E's statement and statement in the investigative agency, the statement and statement of the prosecutor's protocol of the prosecutor's office about F, the notice of credit transfer and takeover, and each recording record against F, it is recognized that the defendant stated that the victim E even though the lease deposit of the above fourth-class private teaching institute was about 50 million won, the amount of KRW 30 million out of the above lease deposit was transferred to G on May 10, 2010, and the amount of KRW 14 million was transferred to G on March 30, 2012, and the amount of KRW 14 million was paid in advance by the lessor on March 30, 2012.

However, in light of the fact that the victim E was in a business relationship with the defendant, and the victim E was in a business relationship with the defendant and was deemed to have been expenses necessary for moving the private teaching institute from the fourth to the third floor, it is insufficient to recognize that there exists a causal relationship between the defendant's aforementioned deceptive act and the victim's disposal act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the fact that the defendant was unable to repay 20 million won borrowed on March 30, 2012 by May 11, 2012, which is the due date, is recognized, but the above amount is fully repaid from May 24, 2012 to June 20, 2012.