The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 201, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Seocheon-si C, intended to purchase the key chiller (number E) from the victim D in KRW 900,000,00, and received delivery of the said chiller at G’s house located in Seocheon-si F.

On June 2012, the Defendant again decided to refund the said horse back to the victim, and around June 2012, the Defendant returned the horse back to the victim, and returned the old horse (number H) equivalent to KRW 300,000,000, not the horse purchased from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and purchasing a track in the amount of KRW 1.4 million from the victim, purchased the track in addition to the horse by the victim, paid the remainder of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000, which is the difference in the market price of the horse that was the initial horse purchase cost and returned, and acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 600,000,00,000,000.

2. The defendant asserts that he/she was in custody of the horse that he/she received from the victim from the investigative agency to this court. As such, the issue is whether the horse that the victim sold to the defendant and the horse that the defendant returned to the victim are different as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by this Court, the following facts are recognized.

In the facts charged, the chassis number of the horse that the victim sold to the defendant is E, and the chassis number of the horse which the defendant returned to the victim is the premise that the chassis number of the horse which the defendant returned to the victim is different from the H.

However, according to the witness I’s testimony and sales ledger (Evidence No. 1) of the victim I, the term “Engine number” attached to the engine at the time of release of the engine, which was produced in 95 years from the date when the victim sold to the defendant, is assembled into E, engines and fashion.