beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant: (a) was operating “E” at the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Center; and (b) on November 9, 201, at the H office of the Victim G management of 101 in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Building 101, the Defendant jointly carried out the “actual transport” amounting to KRW 8 billion from Pyeongtaek Dong-dong, and among the above “actual transport” construction, the Integlas Corporation intends to take the part in the victim’s operation H; (c) in order to operate a soup room within C, the Defendant would pay KRW 30 million for the construction cost until December 5, 2011.”
However, the Defendant did not have any fact that he jointly implemented the “Irrrrrrrt” at Pyeongdong, and the Defendant had already been a bad credit holder, had no property under the name of the Defendant, and the said soup was opened by obtaining a loan under the name of the Defendant, and did not have any specific profits. Therefore, even if the Defendant was supplied with the Humanratty construction from the victim, he/she did not have any intent or ability to pay the construction cost until December 5, 201.
Nevertheless, as above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim do so so so, and had the victim do so so so, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 35.9 million for the construction cost.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the establishment of a crime must be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to a judge’s conviction, there is a doubt of guilt even though it is doubtful.
Even if the interests of the defendant should be judged.
(Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8137 Decided January 5, 2009, etc.)
B. In light of the above legal principles, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is sufficient to examine the following circumstances, which are revealed by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court.