The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On December 10, 2008, the Defendant, while serving as a staff member of the Co., Ltd. Development Bank to develop a golf course in the land B B, 43 square meters, was established by the Defendant.

In a restaurant on December 1, 2009, in which it is impossible to know the trade name in Li-ri-si, the New-Si, Sacheon-si, the fact was ordered by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. to develop the F 430,000 square meters of Li-si, Sacheon-si, and the fact was not awarded a contract by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., even though it was not awarded a contract by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

As the above punishment construction cost is equivalent to KRW 1.29 billion, if 150,000 won is paid in advance, it shall be ordered to enter into a salary contract and receive a contract for the punishment construction work with the victim by making a false statement to the effect that if 150,000 won is paid in advance. On the same day, the contract for the punishment construction work with the victim was entered into with the H account in the name of G which is the defendant's mother's mother from the victim, and the contract was entered into with the victim by defrauding the deposit amount of KRW 150,000.

2. The defendant's statement to the effect that it is true that it has been awarded a contract for the set-off construction work by I who has been entrusted to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and that it did not deceiving the victim, it is difficult to believe that the contract for set-off construction work was not awarded to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and that the contract for construction work (Evidence No. 41) was forged, in light of the witness's statement to the effect that the stamp image of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., attached to the contract for construction work, is true, and the existence of the public letter and contract in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., with the seal attached to the contract for construction work, it is insufficient to recognize that the above contract for construction work was forged, in light of the witness's statement to the effect that the above contract for construction work was forged, and even after examining the remaining evidence, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the contract for construction work was forged, and there is no other evidence to support it.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.