Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged is those who intend to promote the “E business” in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D.

On October 23, 2017, the Defendants conspired to the effect that, at the G Office for the Dispute Resolution of Victims located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim company H and the employees of the victim company (“E Business”), the Defendants made a joint agreement and made a false statement to the effect that “Korea is promoting the “E Business” of the Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon. The profits from the joint agreement are divided by 50 protocol, 2 billion won, and if there is no money, the Defendants would give priority to the payment of KRW 200 million as soon as possible.”

However, at the time of fact, the aforementioned “E business” was separately organized to promote the development project, and the Defendants were only related to some of the posts opposing the said association, not the leading entity of the development project, and even if 200 million won was received from the victim, such as the purchase of land within the said “E” due to the shortage of funds, there was no intention or ability to normally carry out the said “E business”.

From October 24, 2017, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim, thereby deceiving the victim, and then acquired 200 million won from the L bank account (M) in the name of K (M) representative of the Defendant A from the victim.

2. The finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to the prosecutor’s above conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, and there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s non-competence, should be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7454, Nov. 15, 2012). The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court is as follows.