The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is a real estate agent, and the injured party C is an alternative for licensed real estate agents.

In November 2009, the Defendant introduced the victim of the E, 952 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) prior to E in Yangyang-si, Ma ownership at the end of November, 2009, and said, “The Defendant did not have access roads so that the complainant, who had no access roads, would talk about the landowner who had been able to purchase the land, so that the access roads can be made by talking about the owner of the land who had been able to purchase the land.”

However, there was no consent from the land owner who had been prior to the purchase, that the access road construction would be possible.

As such, the Defendant had obtained consent so that access road construction can be carried out, by deceiving the complainant, had the complainant purchase the area of 952 square meters prior to the above time, and then received KRW 10 million from the victim as the down payment on December 4, 2009, and delivered KRW 32 million among them to D on December 15, 2009 as the remainder payment, and acquired and acquired the remainder of three million won by the Defendant.

2. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant is led to the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to have a conviction that is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s interest, and the same applies

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74, May 14, 2004). This Court has duly adopted and investigated it.