The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Around July 11, 2011, the summary of the facts charged states that, in a five-story building owned by the Defendant in Jinju-si, the Defendant would be false as follows: (a) the victim E, who is an employee D, a LG Plus subcontractor, caused by the weight of a radio meter installed on the rooftop; and (b) the roof of the rooftop rooftop building where the Defendant resides is damaged and leakage is likely to occur; and (c) the roof waterproof construction and the living room construction cost would be changed.

However, the above buildings owned by the defendant had already been in the process of auction, and even if the cost of waterproof construction was received from the injured party, there was no intention to perform waterproof construction as promised to the injured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 760,000 won from the injured party to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of F, designated by the Defendant on the 13th day of the same month from the injured party.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of judgment, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant was provided with waterproof construction costs and construction costs by deceiving the victim to the extent that it is beyond reasonable doubt.

It does not appear.

1) Around June 201, the Defendant filed a civil petition with a mobile communications company to the effect that the roof of the board of the rooftop building was damaged by a mobile communications company due to the relay of the mobile communications company. The victim, who is an employee of the LG Plus subcontractor, consulted with the Defendant about KRW 3.5 million in total with the cost of waterproof and astronomical construction, after completing an on-site investigation. At the time, the victim and the Defendant did not consult with the specific method of construction.

In addition, a written estimate, which is the basis of the above consultation, shall include only 2 million won of waterproof construction cost, 1.5 million won of astronomical construction, and there is no specific estimate or construction method.

Therefore, it is true that the defendant had been engaged in a minimum waterproof construction and a tent construction that is recognized by social norms at the time.