The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On June 9, 2017, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with respect to subparagraph 12 B of Article 2017 at the law court No. 23 of the Pyeongtaek-ro 1036 (Dong Dong Dong) in Pyeongtaek-ro 1036 (Dong Dong Dong) around 16:00.

On April 4, 2016, the Defendant informed that B would sell Pyeongtaek-si C Forest, etc. (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to D in advance, and promised that B, upon receiving KRW 670 million from D, would pay KRW 80 million to A when B receives the land purchase price of KRW 670 million from D, and at the same time, upon receiving KRW 50 million from advance payment of the construction cost, B would pay KRW 50 million to A as advance payment of the construction cost, at the same time terminate documents related to the lien, and A would receive KRW 50 million from advance payment of the construction cost to lend KRW 50 million to B.

“The testimony was made to the effect that the implementation agreement was directly made.”

However, there was no fact that the Defendant, around April 4, 2016, sold the instant real estate from B to D, and there was no fact that the Defendant, together with B, made the said implementation agreement on the same day.

Ultimately, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006, etc.). (b) On April 4, 2016, the defendant and the defense counsel stated the fact that the defendant sells the real estate in this case to B through B, a direct or proxy, from B, and around April 4, 2016, the defendant sold the real estate in this case to B through E.