beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, around January 2012, falsely stated in the facts charged, that “Around January 2012, the Defendant borrowed 70 million won as it is necessary to pay money to the victim G, a representative of the said company, through her husband F, from the E office located in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul.” The Defendant borrowed money to the victim G, a representative of the said company through her husband F, for every seven years.
However, at the time, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the above money even if he borrowed the above money because the marina operated with the husband was not operated properly.
The defendant acquired 70 million won from the victim through the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number H) around the 19th of the same month.
2. The finding of conviction ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. The same applies to the recognition of a criminal intent, which is a subjective element of a crime of fraud.
(1) The establishment of a crime of fraud shall be determined at the time of such act, and the establishment of a crime of fraud shall not be determined as at the time of such act, on the ground that the contract was not realized due to changes in economic conditions after such act, etc., and that it was put in the state of nonperformance due to the change in economic conditions, etc., the establishment of a crime of fraud cannot be determined as at the time of such act.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Do249 delivered on April 11, 1997, 2001Do202 delivered on March 27, 2001, etc.). In the instant case, the health care room in the instant case: (a) the Defendant, while working as an intermediate wholesaler affiliated with the E Co., Ltd. in competition with the Defendant’s management, was changed to E and was paid KRW 70 million from the victim as the deposit money; and (b) the deposit money was changed to E on January 2012.