The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around July 3, 2007, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant: (a) around July 3, 2007, at the “F” office of the Defendant’s operation in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, through a licensed real estate agent G, it would be better for the Defendant H to construct a pen with the permission of development from Young-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun to construct a electric source housing complex. Of the above land, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the E-9, 10, 10, 1678 square meters in the sale section among the above land and paid the balance, the Defendant would immediately make the registration of ownership transfer by completing all housing site development projects, such as the “F” office of the Plaintiff’s operation in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, through a licensed real estate agent G.

However, there was no intention or ability to complete the registration of ownership transfer by completing the above housing site development project even if the victim concludes a contract to sell and purchase the land and is paid the price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 30 million won as down payment from the victim's position, and received 156 million won as the remainder on the 18th of the same month, by receiving a total of 186 million won, such as receiving a remittance of 156 million won as down payment.

2. The intent of deception, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a definitive intent but to have dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). The deception refers to an act contrary to the good faith principle that should be widely observed in the transaction relationship, thereby causing mistake to a person, and such mistake is necessarily related to an important part of the juristic act.