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

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the prosecutor applied for the resumption of argument while applying for the alteration of the indictment to the facts charged in this case after the closing of argument, but the alteration of the indictment is permitted only to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the facts charged, and where there is an application for the alteration of indictment due to the facts that are not recognized as identical to the facts charged, the court shall dismiss the application for alteration (Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The identity of the facts charged is maintained as it is if the social facts, which form the basis of the facts, are the same in the basic aspect. However, in determining the identity of these basic facts, the defendant's act and social facts shall be based on the function of identity of the facts, and normative elements shall also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994). However, since the facts charged in this case and the facts charged for the alteration of indictment are different from the date and place of the victim and the crime, the means and method, etc.

When transmitting a photograph by e-mail, it refers to "to sell the machine of this case at KRW 35 million", and the victim accepted it at that time.

However, the Defendant had no intention or ability to sell the instant machine to the victim, since the Defendant was in the state of obtaining F’s consent to purchase and sale, which is the actual owner of the instant machine and the disposal authority.

Accordingly, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby, is the Defendant on March 25, 2013 from the victim.