beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On January 2013, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement on the charge that “If the Defendant transferred a patent right to the door-to-door so that he/she had the function of electricity set, he/she would pay KRW 10 million to the victim C as the acquisition price if he/she transferred the patent right to the door-to-door so that he/she had the function of electricity set.”
However, at the time, the defendant did not have any particular property in bad credit holders, and there was a debt equivalent to 100 million won, and even if the defendant received a patent from the injured party, he did not have any intent or ability to pay
On January 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained a victim’s seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression from the Busan District Court located in Busan District Court, which was located in the Busan District Court’s Dong-gu, Busan; and (c) obtained a pecuniary benefit equivalent to KRW 10 million in the patent acquisition price by changing the applicant from “C” to “D” around February 12, 2013 with the head of the said seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression.
2. The Defendant asserted that he had received documents from C regarding the transfer of a patent right by transfer, and attempted to pay the acquisition price of the patent right normally by carrying out the business by using the documents, but thereafter, he did not pay the price on the wind that the registration of patent right is unnecessary by the staff of the patent attorney office, and did not have the intention to deception C or to defraud it.
3. Determination
A. The establishment of a crime of fraud by defraudation of the borrowed money should be determined at the time of borrowing. Therefore, if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, it cannot be repaid after the change in economic circumstances.
Even if this is merely a mere non-performance of civil liability, it cannot be said that criminal fraud is established (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do249 delivered on April 11, 1997). Meanwhile, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, is not the confession of the defendant.