사기
The accused shall dismiss an application for remedy by the applicant for remedy of innocence.
The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published.
1. Although the Defendant stated in the written indictment 2015 as “2014,” the Defendant appears to be a clerical error in the “2015 year,” the Defendant is corrected.
5. Around 20.20. Around 20.m., the victim C indicates “a list of KRW 30 million” and “a list of KRW 30 million”.
21 In the old accounts, 20 old accounts are organized at the old accounts, and there is only one account, which is recommended to join the fraternity meetings.
However, as the name list shown by the defendant shown to the victim is not composed of all the members of the 20 old unit, the defendant was bound to be responsible for the three old units. The defendant was also destroyed by the previous operation system, and thus the defendant was not responsible for the above three old units, and even if the victim was admitted to the system, there was no intention or ability to pay the above three old units to the victim.
Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 13.5 million between May 20, 2015 and October 20 of the same year from the victim, and acquired it by remittance from the victim.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to maintain the instant system from the beginning, and as other members of the community have not maintained the guidance while withdrawing, there was no intention to acquire it by deception.
B. 1) The prosecutor asserts that the Defendant, “The fact is not constituted by the 20 members of the previous accounts, but by which the 20 members of the previous accounts are organized and only one account stand in the old accounts, thereby deceiving the victim,” and that “the fact is that the Defendant, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the fraternity to the order of the victim, by joining the fraternity and paying the fraternity money, by deceiving the victim by deception.”
2) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence produced by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to intend to pay the guidance at the time of the receipt of the guidance money of this case, or there was a criminal intent to defraud the Defendant.
It is difficult to conclude.