Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
NAME_1, of Liverpool, who has played in the city centre for more than 30 years, denied three counts of fraud. The 62-year-old was found guilty of one count when he played with a Hillsborough Justice Campaign banner draped on his bagpipes in April 2015. He was cleared of the two other counts by a jury at Liverpool Crown Court. Sgt NAME_2 told the court during the two day trial that NAME_3, from Woolton, gave the impression he was collecting cash for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign. In his defence, NAME_3 - who usually wears a kilt and piper's regalia when he performs - said he had piped for the charity in the past but on this occasion he was simply busking. NAME_4, chairman of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign, said he had given NAME_3 permission to design and display a banner featuring the eternal flame and the word justice.

Summary:
1. A bagpipes player has been found guilty of defrauding a Hillsborough charity out of more than PS 1,000.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Provide exactly two different responses that are separated with 6 asterisk symbols: ******.
user