beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Around November 2009, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case stated that “If the Defendant borrowed KRW 200,000,000 to the victim C (hereinafter “the complainant”), he/she would have paid KRW 10,000 per month with the business funds for two months, and would have paid without any molding thereon after two months.”
However, even if we borrow money from the complainant, there was no intention or ability to repay it more than two months.
As such, on December 1, 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving the complainant, was delivered KRW 200 million at the Ehap legal office of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 401) in cash from the complainants.
2. Determination
A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person into mistake, inducing a dispositive act to obtain property or pecuniary advantage. It requires causation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act. On the other hand, whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes mistake to another person, and whether there exists causation between such deception and property disposal act should be determined generally and objectively in consideration of the transaction situation, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of such act.
Therefore, in a case where the complainant's property disposal act or the defendant's act inducing such property disposal act was committed under close relation with the failure or performance of any business as directed by the defendant, the existence of deception or causation cannot be determined simply on the basis of the defendant's financial power or credit status, etc. The relationship between the complainant and the defendant, the awareness and involvement of the complainant in the business concerned, the detailed circumstances leading up to the complainant's disposal of property in relation to the business in question, the possibility of success of the business in question, experience and occupation of the complainant, etc. shall be determined generally and objectively
(Supreme Court Decision 201Do8829 Decided October 13, 2011). B.
record.