The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the chief director of social welfare foundation D.

On December 12, 2014, the Defendant told Hancheon-dong, Daejeon, to the effect that “The Defendant may easily comply with the water business, because it often meets member G,” at the Hancheon-dong, Jungcheon-gu, Daejeon, to remove and arrange other organizations that already supply water at the face of Jeju, to supply water to F.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any special relationship with F and did not have any relationship with F, so the horses were false, and there was no intention or ability to cause E to deliver water to the said company.

As a result, the defendant deceiving E and received 20 million won from E as a referral fee.

2. Although the gist of the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion was that the defendant received KRW 20 million from E, the above money was contributed to the operation fund of social welfare foundation D and the establishment fund of the D branch, not to be paid as brokerage fees by deceiving E, like the facts charged.

3. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have such conviction, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or defense or non-competence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). (B)

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was not proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant deceptioned E as shown in the facts charged.

1 E shall begin with the investigative agency.