The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not conclude that the victim would be able to operate the restaurant and build a 5.4 billion fake dubus, and that the victim voluntarily lent money to the victim who knew of the difficulty in operating the office of the Defendant, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On July 2009, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant purchased 1,300 square meters of a factory site located in the Hasan-gu, Busan, and seven parcels of land and obtained permission for civil engineering work, the Defendant may immediately commence the construction work if it is a provisional attachment established in the register, and five million won of a full payment after the completion of the construction work.”

However, when the above victim refused to have no money, the said victim made a false statement to the effect that “(5 million won) in the construction site would operate the brin restaurant and the 5.4 billion dub structural frame at the construction site if it is lent.”

However, there was no intention or ability to pay the money even after the money is received.

On August 17, 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 5 million from the victim to the account in the name of G bank account in the name of G on August 17, 2009 and acquired it by defrauded.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground of the evidence indicated in its holding.

C. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for a trial on the trial of the trial court is the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty 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). The lower court duly adopted and investigated.