The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who operates the U.S. factory and manufactures the relevant machinery.

On January 2015, the Defendant received a request for repair of screening machines from the victim C at the time of the non-exploitation on the date of January 2015, and thereafter accepted it. At that time, the Defendant collected and maintained the above machines equivalent to KRW 20 million at the market price of the victim, which was owned by the victim. On April 2015, 2015, the Defendant installed and used the machines at the Defendant’s factory operated by the Defendant in the Da in the South-Yung-gun.

While the Defendant kept the above machinery for the victim, he had E, who is a woman of the Defendant, attach the said machinery on the basis of the previous claim against the Defendant, and on January 7, 2016, the Defendant received the bid of the above E in total, with the sale price of KRW 3,590,00,000, including other machinery after the auction of corporeal movable property, on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. According to the legal statement of the judgment witness C, the Defendant will receive the winning of the machine in the name of another woman (E) before E receives the winning of the screening machine of this case.

The facts stated in the judgment below are as follows: (a) the Defendant agreed to, and (b) the Defendant installed the said machinery at a place ordered by, C; (c) the Defendant installed the said machinery at which E was awarded a successful bid; (d) C (a) the Defendant permitted the use of the said machinery upon the Defendant’s request; and (e) the fact that C (a) actually used the said machinery for about two months, together with E, is recognized.

In light of the above facts, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant arbitrarily disposed of the instant unregistered machines by obtaining the successful bid of E against the will of C.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, the facts charged in this case is acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act