The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The defendant is a merchant who operates "D" in C and is a vice-chairperson of the C Merchant's Association, and the victim E is a person who had been a vice-chairperson of the C Merchant's Association.

On November 2015, the Defendant: (a) did not have embezzled and fleded the deposits received from G, H, and I, a merchant; (b) requested the return of KRW 1 million to G, H, and I, the victim E, the former president of the said merchants’ conference, stating that “the money was removed and taken away; (c) the money was received by him; and (d) the victim E, the former president of the said merchants’ conference, “the money was damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.”

2. In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence having probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have the aforementioned conviction, even if there were suspicions of guilt, such as contradictions with the defendant’s assertion or defense, or incompetence, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant. As such, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012 (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012) was denied in the course of investigation, on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that “the defendant removed money from the chairman and received money from him/her,” and there was no reasonable evidence to prove that he/she received such money from G, H and I around November 2015.

3. Conclusion.