The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence of this case is publicly notified.

1. On March 21, 2008, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that “The Defendant may pay 24-42% profit if he invests in the money in the real estate mortgage loan operated in E” to the victim D, thereby lending KRW 37 million to G, the owner of the F apartment No. 102, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant apartment”), who is the owner of the F apartment No. 408, 102 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”), and registered the instant apartment under the name of the victim of the apartment.

The Defendant, at “E” office operated by the Defendant (H625) in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Seoul Metropolitan City, on October 2008, the Defendant cancelled the provisional registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the victim established in the apartment of this case, and sold the apartment of this case to G to transfer the ownership of the apartment of this case to the company.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, even if the defendant sells the apartment of this case, he did not intend to return the loan to the victim at the price.

On October 13, 2008, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received documents necessary for the cancellation of provisional registration from the injured party; and (c) cancelled the provisional registration of the right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership in the victim’s name registered in the instant apartment on October 13, 2008; and (d) registered the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant’s denying I; and (c) acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 37

2. Determination

A. In a false criminal trial, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have a conviction that is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree to have such conviction, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there is suspicion of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014).