The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around May 18, 2014, the summary of the facts charged stated in the charge that at the front D convenience store in front of the exit zone of 1, e.g., Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant was holding the right of retention on the 7th floor of 7,19, 720 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) of the 7th floor, 719, 720 (hereinafter “instant building”) and owned the right of retention on the condition that the right of retention is taken over.”

However, the defendant did not have any capacity or intent to transfer the above lien to the victim or to repay the above borrowed money.

After all, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and he acquired 4.9 million won from the victim to the account in the name of G in the name of his father on the following day.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles 1) The burden of proving the facts constituting a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge not to have any reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002, etc.). 2) The establishment of fraud should be determined at the time of such act, and it cannot be punished for fraud on the ground that the defendant's default status due to changes in economic circumstances after such act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5618, Sept. 25, 2008). Specific determination of this case is based on health expenses, evidence examination, and each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court as legitimate evidence.

It can not be readily determined, and the defendant has the above rights.

I think it to the victim.