beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.05.16 2013고단500

사기

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that the Defendant, even though he/she did not intend to return the vehicle to the victim even if he/she was paid the borrowed money from the victim because he/she received the tank glass vehicle from the victim C as a collateral, he/she had sold it to another person. However, on February 20, 2012, he/she by deceiving the victim C at the E-ownership station located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun, and lent KRW 30 million to the victim for two months, and he/she obtained one vehicle of the Grori vehicle owned by the victim as a collateral and acquired it by the victim under the name of the security.

2. In regard to this, the Defendant lent money to the victim as collateral, and the Defendant did not intend to return the vehicle even if he/she was paid the money from the victim at the time of lending the money that the victim would sell the vehicle after the maturity date, and denies the intent of the crime of defraudation.

3. The intent of the crime of defraudation is to be determined by taking into account objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, and details of the crime before and after the crime. The conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which leads to the judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it should be determined as the benefit of the defendant, and the same applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud.

4. The suspect interrogation protocol of the accused against the prosecution (Evidence 56 No. 56) states that the accused has made a statement to the effect that he/she acquired the vehicle from the first stage of the prosecution investigation to the effect that he/she did not have the ability or intent to return the vehicle from the beginning, and the accused has made a statement that recognizes the facts charged