The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the actual operator of D, who runs the “general waste collection and transportation business, and the intermediate waste disposal business,” etc. in both weeks.

On September 14, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E on September 14, 2012, stating, “On the part of the foregoing company’s office, the Defendant was expropriated in LH (Korea Land & Housing Corporation) due to the revolving housing site project, and there was no problem in removing the warehouse and business facilities (e.g., incineration) of our company, and all disputes related to LH and the above removal were resolved. Therefore, the Defendant would sell the scrap metal from the removal of the above obstacles to 100 million won to the party.”

However, there was a serious difference between the defendant and LH in relation to the scope of removal of the above obstacles (such as concrete buildings, warehouses, and business facilities of the above company) at the time and the disposal of the waste, so it was not possible to remove the obstacles smoothly without any hH and noise.

On September 25, 2012, the Defendant entered into a “contract to remove the building” with the victim on the day, and received 30 million won from the victim via a passbook (Account Number: G) in the name of the victim in the name of the victim as the down payment, and acquired it by deceit.

2. Determination:

A. The defendant's assertion that there was a dispute with LH regarding the removal work at the time, but it was caused by the failure of the LH to satisfy the conditions of a prior decision contrary to the law and regulations, and there was no legal problem in removing the complainant. Since the complainant did not perform his duty to pay the balance and attempted to remove the scrap metal only without discharging his duty to pay the balance, the defendant's assertion that there was no intention to acquire it by fraud.

B. According to the records of this case, the defendant, from November 10, 2006, refers to the building, warehouse, and incineration on the ground of C from the two weeks to the point of view of the fact of recognition (1).