Defendants are not guilty, and each of them dismissed the request of the applicant for compensation.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is the Chairperson of F, and Defendant B is the representative director of the above company.

On March 30, 2015, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that, at the office of the above company located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G and 138, the victim E who wishes to obtain a loan for the land price for the Busan port area, and the cargo parking lot development project, “I would raise 50 billion won in Hau. In this way, I would like to raise 38 billion won in Hau by April 7, 2015.”

However, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to lend money to the victims even though they received money from others under the pretext of fees.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim as above and received KRW 100 million from the victim as a fee.

B. On April 16, 2015, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that, even in the said place, the contract deposit for the development project as above, the Defendants would first be given to the victim who wants to borrow the money, and that, if you want to lend the money, the amount of KRW 40 million should be added to the previous owner at a fee.

However, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to lend money to the victims even though they received money from others under the pretext of fees.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim as above and received 40 million won from the victim as a fee.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true enough to have no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Do963 Decided November 11, 2010