The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around November 14, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government that “A victim C borrowed KRW 30,000 from his/her natives to her mother-gu, with his/her prompt repayment, he/she shall be divorced because he/she becomes aware of her mother-gu and her mother-gu, and only KRW 20,000,000,000.”

However, the defendant did not have the obligation to pay to the friendship, and even if he borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it.

Defendant deceiving the victim as above and received KRW 20,000,000 from the victim’s name to the account under D’s name from the victim’s position, and received the total sum of KRW 93,250,000 from around that time to July 8, 2014, as shown in the list of crimes attached hereto.

2. The Defendant and the defense counsel did not have committed deception, such as the entries in the facts charged, against the victim.

Contents of text messages, performance notes, process deeds, etc. are not prepared by the defendant.

3. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). Considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fraud of the defendant.

A. As to the Nos. 1 of the crime sight table, the victim was investigated by the investigative agency along with E and stated to the same effect as the facts charged, but this court was transferred from F in this court.