The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In fact, the Defendant attempted to receive compensation because of the fact-finding fact-finding failure to receive the home PCs containing Abrid PCs.

The gallon PC cited by the Defendant in the CCTV image for crime prevention, which is a critical evidence of the judgment of conviction against the Defendant, is not a gallon PC, but another gallon PC owned by the Defendant, rather than a gallon PC.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty, in the absence of the fact that the defendant received the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the amblick PC as stated in the judgment of the court below without deceiving the victim.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 12, 2019, around 20:47, the Defendant received the double stairs of the second floor of the building located in the Geumcheon-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, from the victim D (the victim aged 48, south) who is a alternative engineer, the Defendant received the protop PC containing the “Abrid PC”.

Nevertheless, the Defendant called the victim’s cell phone following the following day and sent the victim’s cell phone of the victim “I had no choice but no choice but to find,” and around June 20, 2019, the Defendant sent to the victim’s cell phone of “I had no choice but no choice but to find it, 128 E.S. 5 generations required to compensate for selective distribution.” At this time, the Defendant sent to the victim’s cell phone of the victim’s cell phone of “I have no choice but to say

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, intended to receive 544,250 won as compensation for failure to receive selective transfer, but did not deliver money to the victim without deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence in its judgment.

[The court below held that the CCTV for the purpose of crime prevention installed in the Defendant’s office was a brupt PC that the entire screen was displayed on June 12, 2019 on the screen around 20:47 (hereinafter “the CCTV images of this case”).

on the basis of this photographed point;