beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On November 2016, the Defendant stated in the facts charged that “The victim B and the victim C of the lusium located in the lusium in the lusium in the Solusium in the Solusium at the end of Silusium, “The lusium construction shall be carried out for the seven years in the future from the Solusium in the Solusium in Gyeyang-si to the Solusium. When operating the lusium, an average of 800 persons per day shall be a meal. The amount of KRW 120 million per day shall be changed to operate the lusium in the vicinity of the lusium and the Solusium.”
However, there was no plan to operate a brine restaurant for the above construction section with less than the number of people, so even if the defendant received money from the victims, he did not have the intention or ability to allow the victims to operate the brine restaurant normally.
Nevertheless, around December 2016, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victims as above; and (b) around February 16, 2017, the Defendant received from the victims a total of KRW 60 million, including KRW 50 million, through F, at the coffee shop in front of the E hotel, in cash; and (c) around February 16, 2017, at the coffee shop in Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul.
2. The Defendant and his defense counsel did not have received KRW 60 million by deceiving the victims as stated in the facts charged.
3. Determination
A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a related legal doctrine criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s certification was not sufficiently enough to reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012). B.
Judgment
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court: