A false statement was made.

However, even if a peta is installed, there is no intention or ability to pay the price.

Nevertheless, on December 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, had the victim establish two fabababababababs in the soup period, and did not pay the price, thereby acquiring financial benefits equivalent to the same amount.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. Meanwhile, the recognition of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to 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 suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine it 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6659, May 10, 2012).

1) On October 17, 2016, the Defendant is the actual operator of the Dispute Resolution D and the Dispute Resolution E.

The Defendant newly constructed the building “C” from the former North-gun F, North-gun, and entered into a contract to create a fry in the soup room among the buildings, which is set up at KRW 8 million in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and paid KRW 1,00,000,000 to the down payment.

The Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. E shall be the same.