The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On January 11, 2016, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would make advance payment to E seafarers for one year from January 11, 2016 to E seafarers” to the head of the office work for the long-term fishing boat E in which the victim D would be the owner.

However, in fact, the defendant did not intend to be a seafarer for one year after boarding the above vessel, and was willing to use 21 million won and card payment for failure to perform the existing boarding contract by receiving advance payment.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was immediately remitted from the victim, KRW 21 million to the H account under the name of G, and KRW 25 million to the I bank account under the name of the Defendant, under the pretext of advance payment.

2. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant was unable to maintain the boarding contract due to the extinguishment of the E deck (J) and did not intend to work as a seafarer from the beginning.

3. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in the judgment of this court, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history of the accused before and after the crime, the environment, the details and contents of the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the accused is led to confession

Inasmuch as the recognition of conviction of one part of the facts charged ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it should be determined as the interests of the defendant, and the same applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6011, Aug. 23, 2013). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the defendant was on board the victim’s ship during a month following the instant boarding agreement.