beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the cause of the Defendant. The facts charged are about KRW 30 million to KRW 40 million on August 2002. On the other hand, the Defendant did not have any special property and did not have any intent or ability to repay money from the victim C even if he borrowed money from the victim C.
A. On August 11, 2002, the victim’s house located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, stating that “If the principal and interest is lent KRW 20 million, it shall be repaid without molding the principal and interest” shall be obtained from the victim on the same page from the victim and shall be obtained from the victim on the same page 20 million won as the borrowed money;
B. Around September 11, 2002, at the same place, the victim made a false statement to the effect that “if money is paid, the victim may receive money by selling the goods, but only if money is given, a profit would be given if a profit would be given, and the interest would not be given if it would be difficult to do so.” Accordingly, the victim received KRW 15 million from the victim on the same place as the loan, and the victim acquired it by fraud.
2. Determination
A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant had the intent to defraud the Defendant at the time of the instant loan, and whether the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim on September 11, 2002.
B. The burden of proving the existence of an intentional act, which is a subjective element of the crime prosecuted, is the prosecutor. The conviction of a guilty should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it should be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8726 Decided August 21, 2008). According to the records, the Defendant owned 3 Dong-dong, Incheon around August 2002, 3 and 610 of the market price of 64 million won. However, around June 2002, the Defendant offered the above apartment as security and borrowed 40 million won from community credit cooperatives. The Defendant was above on August 29, 2002.