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

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement in the facts charged, “E” in the “E” of the victim B (n, 29 years of age) operation of the Seo-gu Daejeon Building D, Seo-gu, Daejeon, stating that “The victim will take charge of gold 18K (750), and find 1 million won as it would vary after one month.”

However, there was no intention or ability to find it after the month, even if the defendant receives KRW 1 million from the victim, as a mother's goods, which are not gold as above.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, got the victim to take charge of the stolen goods and obtained the delivery of KRW 1 million.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is beyond a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof is not sufficiently enough to achieve such conviction, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Do15767 Decided February 13, 2014, etc.) B.

The defendant asserts that there was no intention to commit fraud because he did not know whether he was a fake product.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence of this case and the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize the criminal intent of acquiring the Defendant, and thus, the facts charged of this case cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) The Defendant asserted that he received a gift from the male-friendly f, who was enrolled at the time, and that he did not hear whether he was the dead goods of the sold wastes. The Defendant submitted a letter of confirmation to that effect. 2) The Defendant borrowed money from the Defendant only for 18K price since it was impossible for the Defendant to verify whether he was the G refined goods. However, the Defendant was also aware of the fact that he was the mother goods not mixed with the gold.