사기
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the said money even if he/she borrowed money, the Defendant, at the D legal Office located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, on February 20, 2012, stated that “If he/she lends money to the victim E, he/she would use it for the bid price and operating funds of the company, and the principal shall be paid 3% interest per month, and the principal shall be repaid without mold, and the principal shall be paid, and the Defendant received 50 million won from the damaged person as a loan, and then, on March 16, 2012, he/she acquired KRW 130 million in total from the damaged person as a loan, by receiving additional KRW 80 million from the damaged person as a loan.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the defendant's assertion that the defendant and his defense counsel borrowed money from the victim, and the defendant did not repay the borrowed money due to the lack of financial standing of the company, but did not borrow money by deceiving the victim from the next time to the criminal intent of defraudation.
B. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession (Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048 Decided October 21, 1994). Meanwhile, in a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which causes the judge to have no reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the aforementioned conviction would lead to such conviction, the determination of the Defendant’s interest should be made even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the Defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable.
2) The Defendant was found to have obtained the instant monetary loan from F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).