beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant paid F an advertisement as if the chain store had never been determined to move in within the rest area of the Honam Highway D, and then, on May 25, 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim I and the victim J (hereinafter “Appellant”) who found the advertisement at the second floor located in the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City G G G G 2, the victim I and the victim J (hereinafter “victim”) who reported the advertisement at the end of July 2011, “after late to entrust the operation of the E store within the rest area of the Hanam Highway D, the Defendant will rent at the end of July 201, and at the end of July 201, the Defendant would pay 140,000 won under the name of the entrusted business agent, the remainder after deducting 10% of the proceeds from the operation, management expenses, and net profit from the food materials, from the proceeds from the operation.”
However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to commission E within the above D resting area.
The Defendant, by deceiving the complainant as above, received KRW 20 million on May 25, 201, under the name of the contract deposit for the entrusted business by the complainant, from the complainant, as well as KRW 25 million on June 10, 201, the intermediate payment of KRW 60 million on the same part on July 14, 201, and KRW 60 million on the same date and under the same name as the intermediate payment, from the complainant J as the same date and under the same name as the contract deposit for the entrusted business.
2. Determination
A. Whether a crime of fraud is established shall be determined at the time of the act, and it shall not be punished for a crime of fraud on the ground that the defendant's failure to perform his/her duty may not result in changes in economic conditions after the act
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5618 Decided September 25, 2008, etc.). In addition, the burden of proof for the subjective element of the crime prosecuted lies on the prosecutor, and the recognition of conviction ought to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, there is no such evidence.