The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around November 10, 2012, the Defendant stated in the charges that “A” office of the Defendant’s operation in the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan area “D,” the victim E, “I would get off the Defendant’s YY-gu YY-gu YYY-gu YY-gu YY-gu YY-gu YY-gu YY-gu YY-gu

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to deposit this money with F or deliver it to the victim with the right to share the non-contractual share of the above apartment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from the victim on December 1, 2012, at H hotel “I restaurant” located in Gwangju-gu G around 19:00 on December 1, 2012, five million won in cash, and the same month.

3. At around 19:00, a total of KRW 25 million was issued on two occasions, such as a cashier's checks issued by the above office at around 19:00.

2. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the fact that the defendant received 25 million won from E under the name of the defendant to acquire the unit unsold in lots among the apartments that the defendant plans to be constructed by F, as stated in the facts charged, but thereafter, the defendant secured six households among the above unsold units units, but, rather, E refused the acceptance of the above units, i.e., interim marginal profits even if he disposes of the above units, because he refused to acquire the above units, and therefore, he did not have any intention or ability to deliver the unit unsold in lots to E.

그러므로 보건대, 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고인에게 공소사실 기재와 같은 기망의 고의가 있었다고 보기 어렵고, 오히려 증인 J, K의 각 법정진술에 의하면, 위 주장과 같이 피고인이 E의 부탁을 받고 F의 기획실장이자 자신의 조카뻘인 K으로부터 미분양아파트 6세대의 분양권을 넘겨받았으나, E가 이를 인수하지 않은 사실이 인정되는 이상 피고인에게 공소사실 기재와 같은 기망의 고의가 있었다고 할 수 없다

E is the same as the facts charged by the defendant.