The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 9, 2013, at the Defendant’s residence located in Jinju-si, the Defendant submitted documents related to the payment of compensation, such as “the owner is at all the house located in Jinju-si, E, a person in charge of river management and D compensation for damages,” making a false statement to the Defendant that “the owner is at all the house located in the city, and the registration has yet to be completed,” and without notifying the fact that he is not the actual owner, submitted documents related to the payment of compensation, such as “the claim for the compensation for the loss of the land,” etc.

However, the owner of the above house is F, and the defendant was not entitled to compensation for the obstacles to the above house.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the above E, was delivered KRW 20,402,50 as compensation for obstacles to the victim’s truth-finding on June 14, 2013 to the bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired the property of the victim by deceiving the above E.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, insofar as the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.

In light of the prosecutor’s facts charged and various differences, contradictions, and questions presented in support of the prosecutor’s charges, and rather, the Defendant’s assertion and evidence are not an attitude to take criminal court to demand strict certification on the premise of uncertainty.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Do16628 Decided May 13, 201