beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
Around November 17, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around November 17, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000,00,000 to the victim C, who will make the line to work in the Chungcheong voice, with the same construction.”
However, the defendant did not have the ability to carry out the construction of the Chungcheong voice, and there was no intention or ability to repay the amount of KRW 10,000,000 from the victim due to the lack of property at that time.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was issued a cashier’s check that constitutes a face value of 10,000,000 from the victim’s seat.
Judgment
The Defendant asserts to the effect that even though he had transferred KRW 10,00,000 received from the victim to D for the construction work, he could not proceed with the intended construction due to D’s circumstances, and that D did not return KRW 10,000,000 and did not return it to the victim, and that he did not have any criminal intent to acquire it against the victim.
Unless the defendant makes a confession, the intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime, and the process of transaction, of the defendant before and after the crime (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 that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined as the benefit of the defendant, and this is also the same in case of recognizing the criminal intent, which is
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74, May 14, 2004). We examine the instant case in light of such legal principles.
In this case.