The defendant shall be innocent.

On February 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) did not have the intent or ability to purchase heavy golf loans; (b) around 13:00 on February 27, 2014, the Defendant, at the Jung-gu Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu C Dcafeteria, provided that “A person in the city known to him/her has a high-quality golf loan; (c) 2.5 million won is sold to F’s account; (d) received money from F to F’s account; and (e) took profits in property by transfer of KRW 2.5 million from the same day.

Judgment

There is an investigation agency and legal statement of E in support of the accused's deception to purchase high golf loans.

However, as examined below, it is difficult to believe each E’s statement as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant deceivings E as stated in the facts charged.

The following circumstances based on the E’s statement are not consistent with ordinary trading practices, and the statement is not reasonable.

E did not specify any model in addition to designating golf-backed brand as mixed in the course of golf-backed purchase that reaches 2.5 million won, and did not look at what kind of model it consists.

E does not have to confirm the current status of golf loans, whether golf loans actually exist, and who is the seller, etc., and it did not see the price interest in one occasion.

E, even though the defendant is aware that he does not put golf nor does he do not trade golf bonds as a business, he has entrusted the defendant with the full trust of and delegated the defendant about the purchase of golf bonds, and he has remitted the full amount of the price requested by the defendant on the day he knew that he would buy golf bonds.

E In this Court, the reason why the defendant requested to purchase golf loans is that there is only funds for the purchase of golf loans, and the defendant is more important and more golf loans than 2.5 million won.