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

1. Around June 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that “If the facility fund is needed to carry on the franchising business under the trade name of E in the Yansan-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, the Defendant would pay KRW 200,000 per month to the victim C, and supply alcoholic beverages from C by offering apartment as security, and opening two fransings.”

However, at the time of the fact, the Defendant had set up a collateral equivalent to KRW 144,00,00 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 136,00,00 as collateral for the apartment owned by the Defendant in the F apartment G in the Jeonju-si, and the above apartment was no longer secured value for the apartment to be offered as collateral on February 23, 2010. After the termination of the business with H, the Defendant was trying to offer the apartment in the name of H as collateral, and did not offer a separate collateral. At that time, the Defendant had a debt of KRW 25,030,00 with the amount of KRW 13,427,00 with the J. Even if the funeral was operated at the time, the Defendant did not have any exclusive ability to provide the apartment as collateral against the victim and did not have any exclusive ability to provide the said apartment as collateral.

Nevertheless, on July 10, 2017, the Defendant deceptioned the victim as above, and acquired 50 million won through the K Bank account (Account Number: L) in the name of H on July 10, 2017 from the victim.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for the relevant legal principles is the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt has probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.