The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around April 2016, the Defendant is difficult to bear interest burden on the victim E from Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Dong-gu.

Even if a person receives a loan, he/she shall receive a loan after three months from the loan to complete the loan.

“Around April 18, 2016, from an injured party, received KRW 8.5 million from an account in the name of the Defendant to an account in the name of the Defendant.”

However, at the time of borrowing money from a factual victim, the Defendant was aware of the fact that it was difficult to obtain a loan in the name of the Defendant through consultation with the lending broker as well as the obligation of 3 million won of bank loan and 4.2 million won of school loan, etc. In addition, the Defendant was in a situation where it was difficult for the Defendant to normally repay the loan from the damaged party if the Defendant’s job was paid the loan amount of 1.3 million won, excluding the living expenses due to the excessive payment of the loan amount of 1.3 million won. Since the workplace head of the workplace is a contract with the Defendant to work until July 2016, it was anticipated that there was no revenue source after the contract period, there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party.

As a result, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 8.5 million won from the victim, and received 8.5 million won from the victim, and by deceiving the victim on three occasions from October 14, 2016, including from the time to October 14, 2016, the Defendant acquired 13.5 million won in total from the victim.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not having reasonable doubt as to whether the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga10, 2010).