The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is C’s representative.

The Defendant, at the beginning of August 2016, cannot do so, to the victim D ( South, 26 years of age) who asks the Defendant of a telephone about the production of the website at a place that is not known at the beginning of that day.

In addition, since there are many kinds of open market creation, it is expected to make the best website.

The production cost is 4 million won, and 50% of the down payment is paid first, and when the production is completed, the remaining 50% will be paid.

“False speech” was made.

However, even if the victim receives down payment, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to produce the website.

As such, on August 31, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was issued KRW 19.20,00 to the bank account (E) in the name of Korea bank under the name of C as contract deposit for the production of the website.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court in this court, namely, (i) it is difficult to directly recognize the Defendant’s intent to acquire fraud on the ground that: (ii) the Defendant was submitting a screen by cutting down beta broadcast on the ground that the Defendant started the work of creating the Internet homepage entrusted by the injured party, and (iii) the Defendant was practically capable of preparing the Internet homepage, even though there was a reason to dismiss all employees of the Defendant at the beginning of August 2016, when concluding the contract with the victim.

In fact, regarding F who entered into a contract for website production at a time similar to the instant case, the production of the website was completed on September 12, 2016 (Evidence No. 4) and offered it (Evidence No. 4 submitted by Defendant), and ④ The Defendant, even after having entered into a contract for website production at the time of the instant case, filed a complaint from G to G, but the Defendant deposited more than the down payment, and again deposited more money than the down payment, until the period of return.