The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Around September 18, 2010, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case stated that “Around September 18, 2010, the Defendant appointed H attorney-at-law in relation to the G fraud case at the Defendant’s office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the victim F, and that the commission fee is KRW 50 million, and that it will deliver the commission fee.”

However, the defendant did not have appointed a H lawyer for the husband of the victim, and there was no intention or ability to deliver the fees to H attorney.

Accordingly, the Defendant was given KRW 50 million by deceiving the victim.

2. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not having reasonable doubt as to whether the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant is between the suspect even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.)