Defendants are not guilty.

1. On July 28, 2016, Defendant B, an employee of Defendant A and Defendant B, who run a sales store with the trade name “D,” the gist of the facts charged in the instant case, conspiredd and posted a notice posted at the “D” office located on the 1st floor, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, with the victim F, and posted it on the Internet site of the country where the victim F, and made contact with the victim, thereby purchasing at KRW 2.2 million.

However, the Defendants did not intend to pay all the price even if they purchased the ozone layer from the injured party.

The Defendants deceptioned the victim as above and acquired 2.2 million won, which is the market price owned by the victim, from the victim.

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 details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the interest of the Defendant even if there is a doubt of guilt against the Defendant, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74, May 14, 2004). In light of the above legal principles, the records of this case, considering the records of this case, the victim’s situation is about the establishment of the instant land in order to sell it.