The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) was received from the victim C as a deposit money in spite of the fact that the Defendant did not intend to use it as the deposit money.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). B.

Judgment

1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was suspected of not receiving KRW 5 million from the victim as a deposit money. A) The victim stated to the effect that the Defendant demanded KRW 5 million as a deposit from the investigation to the trial stage.

B) The victim transferred KRW 4.7 million out of the above five million won to the Defendant’s personal account, not to the H law firm office’s account, and the certificate of transfer (Evidence No. 21 pages) was written in the column of the passbook for payment and the “deposit Money C” in the passbook for deposit. C) Around March 2015, the Defendant drafted and issued to the victim a certificate of borrowing (Evidence No. 22 of the evidence No. 22 of the record; hereinafter “the certificate of transfer”) that “The Defendant would repay the victim the sum of KRW 5 million and KRW 3 million of the borrowed amount by May 30, 2015.”

(However, at the time of receiving the above five million won from the victim, the defendant was not in a business failure and only up to 50 million won for obligations.