사기
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Fact-finding of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant was given a loan of KRW 27 million from the Busan Central Branch of Hyundai Capital Capital Capital Co., Ltd. when purchasing the instant vehicle for the purpose of doing so, the defendant was given a 27 million won loan from the victim to the Busan Central Branch of Busan Central Branch. However, the above vehicle was in excess of the third party on the condition that the third party takes over and takes over the payment obligation to the victim due to the lack of circumstance, and the vehicle was not paid by the third party and the defendant did not return the vehicle, thereby causing damage to the defendant, and the defendant did not receive 27 million won from the victim by deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim with the criminal intent of defraudation from the time of the loan) and unfair sentencing.
A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the defendant is led to confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to be conclusive intention but to do so, and dolusent intent means the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime requires awareness, and further, there is an internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the actor has permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime should be determined by considering how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is assessed based on specific circumstances, such as the form or situation of the act committed outside the country, not dependent on the statement of the offender, and even in such a case, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof as to the existence of dolusive intention, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime.