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

1. Around December 20, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the inspection office of the inspection office of the “E” of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D Building No. 602-1, the Defendant is holding office as the head of the inspection office of the current social welfare foundation E, and is holding office as the head of the inspection office of the government office, and is holding office as the head of the inspection office of the public office, and is holding the subcontractor with the right to operate the cleaning service business. However, the Defendant would be holding the right to operate the cleaning service business on the face of the contract deposit amounting to KRW 20 million. The said contract deposit

However, since the E-Inspection Office's operating fund was insufficient, it was thought that the victim would use the contract performance bond as employee's benefits, office operating expenses, etc. even if he received the contract performance bond from the victim, and there was no intention or ability to return the deposit to the victim even if the contract is deposited in E

The defendant was transferred from the victim to the company bank account (Account Number: G) in the name of the defendant from the victim, that is, KRW 10 million as contract deposit.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant, on December 20, 2010, entered into the instant agreement with the victim and “A head of the inspection office and representative office of the social welfare foundation” as the title of the contract (hereinafter “instant agreement”), which appears not clear for the contracting party to the instant agreement, and that the Defendant received contract performance guarantee money from the victim in a situation where financial standing is not sufficient, and it is still long after the Defendant received contract performance guarantee money from the victim, and eventually fails to refund the contract performance deposit to the victim by using all the above money as employee’s benefits, office operating expenses, etc., it is doubtful that the Defendant is not guilty of committing the instant crime.

However, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is a crime unless the defendant makes a confession.