beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On April 2015, the Defendant would pay the victim E with money from the trading company on July 20, 2015, in the case of the Defendant’s operation D of the Defendant, which was located in the Seocho-si, Seocho-si, the Defendant would cause the victim E to do so.
“The supply of gold-processed materials equivalent to KRW 10,230,00,00 from the person who believed that he/she was aware of it, as well as the supply of gold-processed materials equivalent to KRW 30,561,30,00 from the beginning of October 2015, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form, was carried out by half of the total amount of KRW 30,561,30 from the beginning of October 2015.
However, in fact, the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay 340 million won at the time, and did not pay office rents and employees' wages, and even if he received the payment from the victim after processing and supplying the deducted goods from the victim, he did not have an intention or ability to pay the payment, even if he received the payment from the victim, such as the payment to the other customer.
Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, took 30,561,300 property benefits.
2. Determination
A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. In the transaction relationship with the goods, the establishment of fraud by defraudation shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire the goods, etc. from the damaged person by making a false statement as if the Defendant were to pay the price of the goods to the injured person, even though there was no intent or ability to do so at the time of the transaction. As such, it is impossible to
Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7481, Nov. 24, 2005). B. Domination, E’s partial statement, tax invoice, defense counsel’s written opinion on March 15, 2018.