The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On August 4, 2008, the Defendant: (a) paid the insurance premium of KRW 100,000,000 per month to Dda located in Nam-gu C; (b) entered into a contract of the Fund’s profit and loss-making pension insurance, which is an performance-based dividend insurance product for which profit and loss are distributed to the contractor; (c) provided that the principal may be guaranteed for the period of 13 years from E; (d) after obtaining the Defendant’s consent, E entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant and signed by the Defendant “13 years from the initial principal payment period; and (e) there was no fact that E had the Defendant buy an insurance policy by deceiving the Defendant; or (e) there was no fact that E forged or altered the said subscription form.

Nevertheless, on April 8, 2013, the Defendant committed an act of fraud against A, who is an insurance solicitor of school life, by stating that “the principal shall be guaranteed three years after the purchase of the insurance policy,” and forged (a) the Defendant’s complaint is 13 years after the purchase of the insurance policy, stating that “13 years after the purchase of the first principal on the subscription form of the insurance policy,” and stated that “13 years after the purchase of the first principal on the subscription form of the insurance policy by the Defendant’s complaint is 13 years after the purchase of the insurance policy,” so that E, an insurance solicitor of school life, can be guaranteed the principal after 13 years have passed since the purchase of the insurance policy.”

A false statement about the above E was prepared, and around April 9, 2013, the public service center submitted the above complaint to E and submitted it to the person in charge of the public service center.

2. Determination

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to a judge’s conviction, the same shall not apply.