The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, a planning real estate business entity, was the C representative director, who is a planned real estate business entity, and was engaged in real estate sales by employing victims D and other employees.

On September 23, 2009, the Defendant stated that “If the Defendant invests KRW 50 million in real estate business and its incidental business related to F Group by September 23, 2010, the Defendant would pay KRW 15,162,450 per month as investment commission, in addition to the investment principal, in C Office located on the fourth floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul E building.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not enter into a contract with the F Group on the real estate business and its incidental business related to the F Group, or did not have any authority to proceed with the business, and even if receiving the investment money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to use it for the business.

The Defendant received KRW 48,044,520 from the victim D to the national bank account (H) in the name of C in the same day under the name of C on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Whether a crime of fraud is established through the deception of borrowed money or investment money shall be determined at the time of borrowing or investment, and it shall not be punishable as a crime of fraud on the ground that the Defendant’s default status led to changes in economic conditions after the act was committed.

On the other hand, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value, which can lead a judge to feel true that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no such proof, even if there is a doubt of guilt against the defendant, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant. This also applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of fraud.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.