The defendant is innocent.

1. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a contract to the victim C with the victim C for the removal of apartment buildings on D and 11 lots at the mutual infinite-dong office located in Ansan-si, Chungcheongnam-si. (hereinafter “instant removal construction”).

From April 30, 2015, the removal works could be carried out. It stated that the removal works carried out from the said construction works would have changed to KRW 50,000,000, which would provide for the supply of scrap metal and non-ferrouss generated from the said construction works.

However, in fact, the above site is not determined as to whether to implement the project because it is not determined as to whether to implement the project due to the lack of land purchase or construction for the removal and construction of the apartment, so even if the defendant concludes the above contract with the victim, he did not have the ability to supply scrap iron, etc. as agreed upon.

On April 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim; (b) obtained 25 million won through the F account in the name of the Defendant’s name designated on April 20, 2015; (c) obtained 5 million won through the G account in the name of the F on the 21st of the same month; and (d) obtained 5 million won through the G account designated by the Defendant on the 27th of the same month; and (e) obtained

2. The summary of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion was subcontracted by E with the knowledge that E was authorized to perform the removal work of this case.

In order to carry out the removal construction of this case, the Defendant deposited a certain amount of money in E in advance. The Defendant supplied scrap metal generated during the removal construction to C, a scrap metal business entity, with no deposit money, and received KRW 50 million in return, and paid part of the money actually received from C to H, an actual operator of E.

Therefore, the defendant does not have the intention of defraudation.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) Taju-si, Da and 11 other rental apartments.