(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.8.13.선고 2014노1447 판결

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. Defendant A shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant A shall be publicly announced.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) Defendant A did not have any particular involvement in the specific process of the instant parcelling-out business, and only was set as an advertising model at the request of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the executor of the instant parcelling-out business, and there was no means to say that Defendant A would have a wind or deposit KRW 200 million with the victim M. as stated in the facts charged.

B) Defendant A is not a loan of KRW 100 million received from Defendant N, but a loan received with respect to the virtual agenda, and even if the loan is a loan, the victim N does not demand the preparation of the loan certificate at the time. As such, Defendant A may not be deemed to have committed a crime of defraudation with Defendant A, since it is not a loan of the above money but a loan, it may not be deemed that Defendant A received the above loan.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

B. Defendant B

The sentence of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Defendant A is an artist, Defendant B is the wife of the above Party A, and F is the operator of G.

1) Joint criminal conduct with Defendant B

피고인 B은 2004.8.26. 충남 보령시 H 잡종지 60,231평(이하 '이 사건 개발부지'라 한다)을 평당 약 118,900원 총 대금 71억 원에 낙찰받아 그 대금 중 50억 원을 현대스위스은행으로부터 대출받아 지급한 사실이 있고, 2009. 5. 19.경 위 토지를 한국자산신탁에 신탁하면서 향후 분양대금은 모두 한국자산신탁 명의의 계좌로 송금받는 등 자산관리를 맡기는 것으로 약정하고, 시행대행사를 F이 운영하는 G로, 분양사를 주식회사 (이하 'T'라 한다)로 하여 'J'라는 이름으로 대규모 리조트를 지을 예정이라고 대대적으로 홍보하여 분양자들을 모집하게 되었다. 그러던 중 피고인들은 F과 공모하여, 2009. 5. 초순경 서울 용산구 K에 있는 피고인들의 집에서, 피고인 B과 F은 집 벽에 사업계획도를 붙여놓고 그 위에 마치 많은 부분의 토지가 이미 계약이 체결된 것처럼 표시를 해 놓은 후 L의 소개를 받고 찾아온 캐나다 교포인 피해자 M에게 피고인 A이 사업주 또는 시행자로서 사진과 사인이 인쇄되어 있고, 'J 택지분양은 국민가수이며 현 AF 회장인 A이 사업주로, 대한민국 대표적인 공인으로서 신뢰할 수 있음'이라는 문구가 기재되어 있는 내용의 일간지 광고를 보여주면서 '보령시 땅 AE 블록 745평에 대해 분양계약을 하면 대단위 대지 조성을 위한 인허가를 득하여 늦어도 2~3개월 안에 개발을 한 후 소유권이전등기를 해주겠다'라고 말을 하고, 피고인 A은 피해자가 듣는 가운데 피고인 B에게 '강원도에서도 투자하러 온다고 했지?'라고 큰소리로 말하여 바람을 잡고, 피고인 B은 '앞으로 좋아질 것이다'라고 말하였다. 그러나 사실은 위 토지는 잡종지로서 계획관리지역에 해당하여 현재로서는 3층 이상의 고층빌딩을 지을 수 없어 대규모 리조트를 지을 수 없는 곳이었고 토지 형질변경 등 개발행위 후 제2종 지구단위계획 대상지 지정신청을 하여 보령시청에서 최소 6개월에서 최대 2년간의 각종 검토 및 인허가 등의 절차를 거친 후 위 토지가 제2종 지구단위계획 대상지로 편입이 되어야만 3층 이상의 건물 등 대규모 리조트를 지을 수 있었으므로 분양신청자와 토지매매계약을 체결하더라도 수개월 내에 위와 같은 절차를 모두 거쳐 소유권이전등기를 해주는 것이 불가능했으며, 또한 피고인 B은 위 대출금의 원금 및 이자 대부분을 제대로 변제하지 못하여 대출원리금이 100억 원이나 되는 등 자금사정이 어려워 개발행위를 위한 10억 원 이상의 공사대금을 감당할 수 없었으므로, 위 토지를 가분할하여 특정 부분의 토지에 대한 매수자를 모집하여 매매대금을 받더라도 위 토지를 수개월 내에 제2종 지구단위계획 대상지에 포함시켜 대규모 리조트로 개발할 수 있는 땅으로 만들거나 피해자로부터 받은 대금에 해당하는 토지에 대한 정상적인 소유권이전등기를 해줄 의사나 능력이 없었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 피고인들은 이에 속은 피해자를 2009. 5. 22. 위 피고인들의 집으로 다시 오라고 하여, 2004년에 평당 118,900원에 구입한 위 토지 중 가분할한 AE 블록 225,36평을 평당 190만 원의 가격으로 책정한 합계 428,188,750원에 매도하는 토지청약서를 작성하면서, 같은 날 계약금으로 9,500만 원, 2009. 8. 25, 중도금으로 119,094,375원, 나머지 214,094,375원을 융자 또는 잔금으로 받기로 하고, 같은 날 피해자로부터 분양 계약금 명목으로 한국자산신탁 명의의 국민은행 계좌로 9,500만 원을 송금받았다. 그 후 피고인 B은 F과 함께 2009. 5. 하순경 위 피고인의 주거지에서, 피해자에게 '지금 자금 사정이 어려우니 2009. 8. 25. 어차피 납부해야 할 중도금을 미리 당겨서 달라'고 요구하였으나 피해자가 '적금 든 것 이외에 지금 돈이 없다'라고 하자 '그럼 나중에 손해는 보전해 줄 테니 적금이라도 해약해서 달라'고 요구하여, 피해자가 2009. 6. 1. 외환은행 적금을 해약하여 마련한 현금 5,700만 원, 수표 3,500만 원권 1장 등 합계 9,200만 원을 교부받고 F 명의의 영수증을 작성하여 주었다. 또한 피고인 B은 2009, 6. 10.경 같은 장소에서, 피해자로부터 중도금 명목으로 수표 2,700만 원권 1장을 교부받고 마찬가지로 F 명의의 영수증을 작성하여 주었다. 그리고 피고인 A은 2009.6. 중순경 위 피고인 A의 집에서, 피해자 M을 전화로 불러 집으로 찾아온 피해자 M에게 '내가 돈 문제 때문에 집사람과 싸우다 한 대 때려 집사람이 집을 나가 들어오지 않고 있는데 집사람이 관리하는 자금에 문제가 생겨 3억 원 정도가 필요하다, 돈을 넣지 않으면 보령시 관련 사업이 모두 무산될 수 있다.

As soon as there was an urgent demand to transfer the balance of KRW 200 million, the Defendants received KRW 200 million from the victim to G account, which was the enforcement agency on June 22, 2009. Accordingly, in collusion with F, the Defendants received KRW 414 million in total as the purchase price for the land from the victim.

B) Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct

around September 2009, Defendant A newly produced the above M’s recent music record to the Victim N, the husband of the above M, and Defendant A said that Defendant A would immediately pay for KRW 100 million if he/she borrowed money from the victim N even if he/she borrowed money from the victim N. Nevertheless, Defendant A received KRW 100 million from the victim under the pretext of borrowing money on September 30, 2009. Accordingly, Defendant A had the victim N by deceiving the victim N.

1) The lower court found Defendant A’s credibility of the statement because it is difficult to see that Defendant A had made a statement on the part that acquired money from the victim M in collaboration with Defendant B and F (hereinafter “joint crime”), and that Defendant A did not have been aware of the victim M on May 22, 2009, on the grounds that (i) the victim M was released from the investigative agency to the lower court by introducing the process of gathering the Defendants from L to the lower court; (ii) the process of obtaining an investment scheme from the Defendants; and (iii) the process of paying money from the Defendants as an intermediate payment and remainder payment of the land in this case at the request of the Defendants; and (ii) the victim’s statement that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that the victim’s purchase of the land in this case was difficult; (iii) the victim’s statement that Defendant A and W had been aware of the credibility of the content of the advertisement in this case on May 22, 2009, indicated the victim’s sign submitted by the victim M was recorded in the victim’s statement that Defendant A and 278 were directly involved in the sale price.

2) Defendant A borrowed KRW 100,000 from the victim N. 2 at the time of borrowing KRW 100,000,000,000 for the following reasons: ① The victim N. 1 was aware of the fact that he/she borrowed KRW 100,000 from the victim N. 3 at the time of borrowing KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000,000 won.

C. Judgment of the court below

1) As to the co-principal

A) In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, two or more persons must jointly commit a crime. It is necessary to have the fact of implementation of a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is subjective requirement, with the intention of joint processing and objective requirement. Joint processing is not sufficient to recognize another person’s crime but to deny it without restraint. As such, it is necessary to establish one’s own intent to jointly commit a specific criminal act with another person’s intent and to mutually support each other’s role burden and joint action. In addition, if the Defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, there is no need to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance in light of the nature of things, and, in this case, what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relevance, it should be reasonably determined by the method of reasonably determining the situation of connection with the Defendant’s criminal facts based on the close observation or analysis of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3297, Sept. 28, 1997).

B) Therefore, in order to impose liability on Defendant A as a co-principal with Defendant B, F, it should be recognized that Defendant A conspiredd with Defendant B, and F to commit a co-principal. On the premise of the foregoing, it should be recognized that Defendant B and F knew of the negligence of committing the fraud against Defendant B and F’s victim M, and thereafter, it should be recognized that the fact of committing a co-principal committed in the same manner as indicated in the facts charged.

C) First, we examine whether Defendant A could be deemed to have recruited joint criminal conduct with Defendant B and F, and whether the joint criminal conduct was dolusently known. The elements of the instant joint criminal conduct are as follows: ① The land purchased by the victim M is a miscellaneous area and a planned control area; ② even if the Defendants were to apply for designation as a Class II district unit planning area after the alteration of the form and quality of the land, the maximum of 6 months has passed from the date of the application for designation as a Class II district unit planning area; and further, Defendant B was unable to pay the construction cost of more than 1 billion won due to financial difficulties such as the principal and interest amount to be paid to the Defendants B and F amount to KRW 10 billion for development activities. Thus, it is difficult to find that there was no intention or ability to register the ownership of the land purchased by the victim M within the period set by the victim M as a miscellaneous area; ② the evidence duly admitted by Defendant A and the prosecutor as well as the following part of the charges cannot be determined based on the evidence adopted and the evidence presented by Defendant A as follows.

(1) On April 15, 2009, the site of the instant development project was awarded a successful bid in the auction procedure by Defendant B, and Defendant B had experience in operating a real estate-related office for a considerable period of time residing in the United States. On April 15, 2009, Defendant B entered into a contract with F and F, which was introduced that Defendant B had experience in the sale of the instant development project on behalf of Defendant B, with regard to the development project related to the instant development site, to perform the development project, such as the sale management, design management, and construction management, and to receive 30% of the sale price, and entered into the contract with B as a sales agency contract with other I, and operated the Korea Asset Trust and the trust contract with L, one of the partners of G, and the cost of the development project was managed by G or the account under the name of Defendant A under his control. On the other hand, Defendant A and C did not have such business experience prior to the instant development project and did not have any specific involvement in the plan or execution of the instant development project.

(2) In other words, on May 22, 2009, when the first explanation of the development project of this case is made to the victim M on May 22, 2009, the first explanation was made by the Defendants [the first explanation was made by the Defendants to the victim M on May 22, 2009, and the first explanation was made by the Defendants to the victim M, but the main purport of the statement from the victim M investigative agency to the trial was to the victim M on May 22, 2009, L went back to the Defendant M on May 22, 2009, and the first explanation was made to the victim M& without hearing the business explanation from the Defendant B and F, and it was difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s statement was made to the public prosecutor M&F’s account or the Defendant’s explanation was made to the public prosecutor’s office (the above explanation was made by the Defendant 2 in the process of investigating the Plaintiff’s account and the Defendant’s statement made to the public prosecutor’s office (the Defendant 2).

(3) Considering that the investigation agency’s request for sale of AF advertising advertising for the role of the Defendant in the instant development project, the F made no statement to the effect that it was difficult for the Defendant to report the terms of AF advertising for the instant development project, and that there was no room for the Defendant to take advantage of the fact that the first testimony was not made by the Defendant before the lower court, and that the Plaintiff did not deposit the money received from the Victim M to the account in the name of the Defendant at the time of the first instance, and that it was not possible for the Defendant to take advantage of the fact that it was difficult for the FF to take advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to obtain money from the Plaintiff at the time of testimony at the time of the lower court’s second instance, and that it was possible for the Defendant to take advantage of the fact that there was a lack of understanding of the content of AF advertising to the public official who was in charge of the instant development project, such as the Plaintiff’s visit and the Plaintiff’s testimony that it was difficult for the FF to take advantage of the content of AF program.

(4) Ultimately, among the F’s statement of investigation agency, the part that can be seen as being part of the development project of this case was conducted by Defendant A at the sales office of this case and the advertisement of the development site of this case was modeled. Only the phrase that the development site of this case was the highest investment value as the site subject to Class II district unit planning and the part that Defendant A was entered as the business owner. Of this, the fact that Defendant A was in the sales office of this case, as the husband of Defendant B, who actually carried out the development project of this case, was in the sales office of this case, and did not encourage the investors to make an investment, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A participated in the project. There is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A participated in the development project of this case, and on the contrary, there is no suspicion that part of the development site of this case was favorable at the sales office of this case, but there was no charge of non-prosecution disposition as a result of the investigation conducted by the investigation agency, but there was no charge of non-prosecution disposition as to the non-prosecution disposition against Defendant AB.

(5) Meanwhile, although Defendant A appears to have been aware of the fact that he/she was the business owner of the advertising site that he/she had formed a model and that he/she was aware of the fact that the phrase of the above business introduction was written (F had shown to the Defendants at the investigative agency, but at the time, Defendant A testified that Defendant A was given an explanation of the advertising site and only one phrase, but as seen above, at the court below, Defendant A testified that Defendant A was given an explanation of the advertising site from a public relations agency, but at the time, Defendant A was given an explanation of 5 million won with the victim, and Defendant A was subject to criminal punishment, and the overall testimony was unfavorable to Defendant A, compared to the statement made by the investigative agency, and there was no reasonable ground to believe that the overall testimony was different from that of the statement made by Defendant A, and thus, it cannot be said that there was credibility. Meanwhile, the F did not change the advertising site’s content at the time of signing the district-unit plan to Defendant A’s use of the advertising site at the time of the above change or its content.

D) In the aspect of functional control, Defendant A’s execution of Defendant A, as stated in the facts charged, stated in the facts charged, stated as follows: ① at the time of the victim M at the time of the project explanation on May 22, 2009, Defendant B said that Defendant B would have been making an investment in Gangwon-do at the time of the victim M; ② In June of the same year, Defendant B would not enter the house of Defendant B as a matter of money, and said, Defendant B would promptly transfer the balance of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 won.

(1) First of all, the victim M is the only ground for the above part (1) of the victim's statement. While the victim submitted a written complaint and was investigated by the police 6 times including questioning, the victim's statement was first sent to the prosecutor, and the defendant A did not mention the above facts at the time of the first explanation of the business, and it was the first time the case was investigated by the prosecutor in charge, and the defendant A did not have the wind as above. However, the F, which was at the business explanation site of the victim M, testified that the defendant A did not carry out the sale business, and it was not a separate appearance since the defendant A did not carry out the sale business at the court below, and it is difficult to reverse the above statement of the victim's first time after the victim's statement from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance. In light of the above, if the victim's statement of the victim M, it is difficult to see that the defendant A actively participated in the sale business of this case, such as the plaintiff's first time after the victim's statement from the police room and the victim's second time.

(2) On June 10, 2013, M&C made a statement to the effect that the above statement was not made when it was first submitted to the public prosecutor’s account book and the police was not made. At the time when it was made to the public prosecutor’s account, the first time when it was made by Defendant B, and the first time when it was made by Defendant B to manage all funds related to the sale of land, and there was a big problem to carry out housing site development projects unless it was provided with necessary funds, it was stated that Defendant A sent money to the public prosecutor’s account at the time when it was made to the public prosecutor’s account, and that it was difficult for the public prosecutor to know that the money was transferred to the public prosecutor’s account at the time when it was transferred to the public prosecutor’s account, and that the money was transferred to the public prosecutor’s first time after the public prosecutor’s request to the public prosecutor’s account, and that the money was transferred to the public prosecutor’s account at the time of the first time after the public prosecutor’s statement to the public prosecutor’s account.

(3) Meanwhile, on June 17, 2013, the public prosecutor argued that the victim M should have registered the victim M's residence at the time of the transfer of ownership with respect to the report of the victim M on his domicile to the Ri office of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea on June 17, 2013, and that the victim M should have registered the victim M's residence at the time of repayment with the remainder of the remainder, and that the victim M should have known the date and issued the victim's residence report through the relevant public officials, and submitted as evidence a copy of the report certificate stating the date of issuance of the victim's M's residence report certificate as evidence. However, according to the court below's decision, Q tried the victim M on June 17, 2009 to report the domestic domicile of the victim to the Yongsan-gu Office and the Dong-dong Seoul Immigration Control Office, and it was difficult for the victim MM M to have made a request for criminal punishment from the victim MM to the date of early arrival of the victim's ownership transfer registration and the remainder of evidence.

2) As to the sole crime

A) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following circumstances, namely, at the time, it does not seem that there was a pro rata relationship between the victim N and the defendant at the time when the victim N paid KRW 100 million to the defendant A, and in particular, there is no reason to support the defendant A by lending money to another person by the victim N, and after that, the defendant A prepared a loan certificate of KRW 100 million to the victim N, the legal nature of the amount of KRW 100 million received by the defendant is deemed as the loan money.

B) However, there is a fact that there is a circumstance to suspect that Defendant A was aware of the receipt of the above money from the victim N, in light of the fact that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that Defendant A had been aware of the receipt of the above money from the lender at the end of the year, and that Defendant A had been aware of the receipt of the amount of 100 million won or more, and that Defendant A had not been aware of the fact that he had not been directly aware of the fact that he had not been aware of the receipt of the payment during 12 months. However, in light of the following various circumstances recognized by the lower court and the first instance court in view of the evidence duly adopted and examined, Defendant A could be deemed to have received KRW 100 million or more from the victim N, and thus, there is no room for doubt that Defendant A had been aware of the receipt of the amount of 100 million or more from the victim N, and thus, Defendant A could not be deemed to have received the amount of 100 million won or more from the victim N without reasonable evidence.

(1) At the time of lending money, the victim N did not require the Defendant A to submit a loan certificate or receipt, and there seems to have been no clear discussion about interest or maturity. In this regard, the victim N stated that the Defendant N did not receive a loan certificate or receipt because of the temporal urgency of time to leave Canada again on the date when KRW 100 million was paid. However, as the victim M visited the Defendants’ house and paid an intermediate payment on June 2009 and received a receipt, it appears that the victim N would have been able to prepare documentary evidence, such as a loan certificate or receipt, without much time, even though the victim N did not receive such document, and it appears that there was no other conversation that 100 million won could suggest that it was borrowed.

(2) At the lower court, the victim N testified that Defendant A was aware of the receipt of KRW 100 million, and it was believed that Defendant A was aware of the receipt of the loan. However, there is no room to presume that Defendant A was believed to have received KRW 100 million from the perspective of the victim N, if the dialogue was conducted solely on the premise of borrowing the money of KRW 100 million, such as the victim N’s assertion, and the money was paid accordingly.

(3) 1억 원의 지급을 부탁받은 경위에 대해 피고인 A은 피해자 M에게 찬조를 부탁한 것이라고 주장하고, 피해자 N은 피고인 A이 먼저 피해자 M에게 부탁하고 이어 같이 부부동반으로 운동을 하고 돌아오는 길에 피고인 A이 다시 자신에게 음반 관련 홍보비 조로 돈을 빌려달라고 부탁하였다고 진술하고 있다. 따라서 적어도 피고인 A이 피해자 M에게 1억 원 지급을 먼저 부탁한 것은 사실이라고 할 것인데, 당시 피고인 A으로서는 피해자 M과 관계가 상당히 돈독한 사이였고(비록 농담이지만 피해자 M이 피고인 A에게 피고인 B과 자기가 물에 빠지면 누구 먼저 구할 것인지 묻기까지 하였고, 그 외 피해자 M이 피고인 A을 위하여 지갑을 사주고 3벌의 양복을 맞추어 주기까지 하였다), 피해자 M의 돈 씀씀이가 컸으므로 위 돈을 실질적으로는 피해자 M으로부터 받는 찬조금이라고 오인할 가능성도 있었던 것으로 보인다.

(4) After receiving KRW 100 million from the victim N, Defendant B donated a valuable and high-priced precious metal, etc. to the victim M. In view of the fact that Defendant B did not do so at the time of receiving an investment from the victim M, it may be deemed that the Defendants believed that the Defendants received KRW 100 million from the victim M.

(5) On December 2009, the injured Party N did not claim payment of KRW 100 million from the Defendant A, such as sending a certificate of content demanding the performance of the loan to Defendant A even after the lapse of December, 2009, instead of obtaining the immediate loan certificate from the Defendant A around April 2010, the injured Party N received a letter of payment for KRW 100 million from the Defendant A to the Defendant, and then again received a certificate of borrowing KRW 100 million from the Defendant A at around October of the same year.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, it is difficult to find that Defendant A conspiredd with Defendant B and F, or committed an act of implementation falling under the functional control of joint criminal conduct only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and it is difficult to conclude that Defendant A had the criminal intent of defraudation at the time of receiving KRW 100 million from Victim N in the sole criminal conduct. Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion disputing that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts is with merit.

3. Judgment on Defendant B

The defrauded amount of this case amounts to KRW 414 million and some of the money appears to have been used for gambling purposes regardless of the development project of this case is an element of sentencing unfavorable to Defendant B. However, in light of the following factors: (a) Defendant B confessions all of the crimes in the course of investigation; (b) Defendant B discharged the victims of this case in the course of investigation; (c) Defendant B paid KRW 200 million to the victims M; and (d) Defendant B deposited KRW 154 million against the victims during the trial; and (b) the victims’ damage was deemed to have been recovered by deposit against the victims of this case; and (c) Defendant B was only punished as favorable to the Defendant B. In addition, considering all the factors of sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the age, character and conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' appeal is all reasonable.

another judgment (as to the defendant B)

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence is to be cited in the summary of the evidence of the judgment of the court below, except for the fact that the “1. Defendants’ partial statement” in the summary of the evidence is changed to “statements in the trial of Defendant B” as “statements in the trial of Defendant B,” and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Code, the choice of imprisonment

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)3)

Part not guilty (as to the defendant A)

The summary of the facts charged in this case against Defendant A is the same as that of the above 2. A. C. as seen in the same paragraph, since all of the facts charged in this case is when there is no proof of a crime, the facts charged in this case shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment shall be publicly announced pursuant to Article