The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, from around October 2009 to October 201, operated the marriage broker, “D” as “H,” ex officio, since the “D” appears to be the error in both weeks of the game.

On March 5, 2011, the Defendant entered into a branch contract with the victim E in the two weeks of Gyeonggi-si, and arranged the marriage of the G in the case other than the case F, which was introduced by the victim, and the women of space bekistan.

As above, the Defendant, while mediating an international marriage, knew that the F would pay USD 10,00 with compensation for mental physical damage inflicted on the new father G in the event of cancelling the marriage due to the change of the F’s mind, and promoted a marriage with F on the condition that he would pay USD 10,000 as compensation for mental physical damage caused by the new father G. However, as the marriage with G was cancelled due to the change of the F’s mind, the Defendant received and kept KRW 11,274,000 for consolation money received from F on November 11, 201.

If the Defendant received the above amount from the victim, he/she should pay it to G according to the contents of each letter, but on November 28, 201, he/she paid only USD 100 (Korean Won 1.1 million) out of the consolation money to G in a restaurant located in Space Benkistan Tenst on November 28, 201, and embezzled by arbitrarily using the remaining amount of KRW 10,174,01.

2. In a judgment, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the truth of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). We examine the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, the victim’s trade name between the Defendant and the Defendant, free of charge, on March 5, 2011.