The defendant is not guilty. The summary of this judgment shall be announced publicly.

1. On June 3, 2009, the Defendant charged with the facts charged at an office where the name of the Defendant in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, operated by the Defendant, is unknown, and the victim D, “The Defendant operates a singing room in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, to sell the singing room immediately after the Defendant appeared.

Since it is not sold due to singings' taxes and electricity taxes, if it is leased KRW 10 million, it will be paid within one week after paying the smuggling tax and electricity tax and selling the singing room after paying it.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not operate a singing at the time, and there was no intention or ability to pay money within one week, even if he received money from the injured party because he did not operate a singing at the time, and the personal debt was approximately KRW 20 million, but there was no particular revenue.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and he received the total sum of KRW 10 million from the damaged person to the account under the name of the defendant on the same day and acquired it by fraud.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged that the defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim D as stated in the facts charged on June 3, 2009. However, the defendant asserts that the money was paid to the defendant for the consideration that the defendant assisted the work of D or received money from the victim D.

In full view of the facts charged and the Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion, the key issue of this case is whether D’s promise to repay to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request for the lending of money paid by D, or whether the money received by the Defendant as a consideration for, or for, the Defendant’s business received (the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion).

Considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, there is a reasonable doubt that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that the said 10 million won was paid upon the Defendant’s request for a loan.