beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. Around March 2015, the Defendant made a false statement of the facts charged that “The Defendant would make a direct operation of the telecom or sell the telecom because it is a set-site for the telecom,” with respect to the land owned by the victim at an irregular coffee shop in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as Mapo-gu) or the Plaintiff’s Gyeonggi-si (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-gu”). As such, the Defendant would make a false statement of the fact that the authorization and permission related to the telecom construction would be dealt with both internal and internal matters, such as authorization and permission for real estate development and design expenses, etc., upon obtaining the authorization and permission
However, in fact, the defendant thought that he received money from the defendant to use it for personal purposes, such as the price of materials at other construction sites, etc., and the victim's land was owned by the victim in a situation where it is impossible to permit accommodation under the Macheon City Urban Planning Ordinance because it was within 10 meters in the neighboring area, and thus there was no intention or ability to leave the telecom as agreed even
Around March 25, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim for the expenses for the permission of the telecom, from the victim, from the Defendant, to the E Union account (F) in the name of the agricultural company D (owner) operated by the Defendant, as well as from the time to June 12, 2015, the Defendant received a total of KRW 163 million on a total of six occasions under the name of the telecom construction, as described in the attached list of crimes, as shown in the list of crimes.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true enough to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty, it cannot be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). B.
The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.