The defendant is innocent.

1. Around February 28, 2008, the summary of the facts charged stated in the charge that, at the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office operated by the Defendant, Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant would pay the victim E interest on the second of each month and pay the principal within six months.

However, as the Defendant used most of the proceeds from operating a licensed real estate agent's office without any particular property as office operating expenses, living expenses, and interest on loans, etc., the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the interest until the date of the promise, even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The Defendant received from the victim the total sum of KRW 57,824,650 from the victim until February 27, 2012, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from the victim.

2. Whether fraud is established through the deception of the borrowed money should be determined at the time of borrowing. Thus, if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing, even if the defendant refuses to repay the borrowed money in full after the loan, this is merely a non-performance under civil law, and it cannot be said that criminal fraud is established. Meanwhile, unless the defendant does not confession, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial power, environment, contents of the crime, transaction, the process of transaction, and relationship with the victim, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 delivered on March 26, 196). Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, the defendant's suspicion of guilt even if there is no such evidence.