The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) was insufficient in business funds for the Staff Habman on September 2, 2014; (c) borrowed money from the victim D; (d) the Defendant was aware of, and used in installments; and (e) around October 2, 2014, the Defendant presented a contract for the lease of a store in the name of the victim D at the coffee shop in the name of the Dongjak-gu Seoul, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, for a 30-ro 12-gil, and around October 2, 2014, the Defendant presented a contract for the lease of a store in the name of the victim D. “C’s wife is a restaurant in Gangnam-gu F, and the restaurant’s lease deposit is KRW 120 million.

On April 1, 2015, a false statement was made to the effect that the payment will be made until April 1, 2015.

However, in fact, it is unclear whether the above restaurant is able to receive the full return of the lease deposit with almost little profits. The C's share in the deposit was limited to 1/2, and at the time, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the deposit properly even if he borrowed the above money, such as the amount of personal debt including financial rights, up to 60 million won.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, was accused of the victim and received KRW 25 million from the victim via C around that time.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the records of the judgment, the Defendant: (a) borrowed the instant money only by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor; and (b) deceiving the victim.

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

The victim seems not to lend money to the defendant with the belief of only the lease agreement of the store C, and the fact that the defendant's repayment ability is not good, it is also determined that the period of repayment will be postponed even with the knowledge that the defendant's repayment ability is not good.

① On September 2014, the Defendant borrowed money of KRW 50 million from the injured party, together with C, a ticketing agent, around September 2014.

It is true that C presented a store lease contract in the name of the wife E at the time, but it is actually the above store.