The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around April 15, 2010, posted a phone call to the victim B, who did not pay any balance.

The deposit shall be repaid without a mold after one month from the loan of the deposit.

Merely, he said that he would complete the payment on behalf of Mada.”

However, the Defendant did not work at the time and did not have been clearly agreed with C on the repayment of the obligation subrogation, so even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to change it within the agreed period.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and he acquired 15 million won from the victim to the corporate bank account under the name of the defendant on the same day.

2. According to the evidence duly examined by this court, the defendant had a special deception on the ability to pay, considering that the victim did not have a deposit for the lease on a deposit basis at the time and the defendant did not have any other difficult economic situation.

It is difficult to see that the victim also did not have the ability to repay the obligation of the defendant and demanded that the guarantor be appointed. Accordingly, the defendant listed C as the guarantor, that is, it is difficult to see that the victim was involved in the mistake as to the defendant's ability to repay the obligation of the defendant, and that there was no clear agreement between C and C on the charge of the charge.

The defendant, however, has requested C to provide the guarantee.

Then, the victim argued (12 pages of the investigation records) and confirmed it by telephone to C.

Statement was made (No. 67 pages of the investigation record), C does not memory the receipt of the person's name in this Court.

In addition, the defendant has forged it.

written by C, in view of the absence of the assertion.