beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On March 11, 2013, the Defendant falsely stated in the facts charged that “The Defendant will pay back the outstanding amount to the victim B, as the outstanding amount entered within one month from lending the insufficient amount of goods, at a coffee shop in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon.”
However, in fact, the Defendant invested KRW 200 million in D around April 2012, but did not receive a proper payment of the profits therefrom. Since the Defendant was used as the price for the card of the person who received the payment from C Hospital, the employee’s wage, etc., the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the funds borrowed from the victim with the above payment.
Ultimately, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim to the E partnership account in the name of the Defendant, and obtained a total of KRW 40 million from the time to March 26, 2013, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table, from March 26, 2013.
2. Judgment on the assertion
A. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is not guilty because the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money at the time of borrowing the money, and thus, the Defendant is not guilty.
B. Determination at the time of the establishment of a crime of fraud is determined as at the time of the act. As such, if the borrower had the intent and ability to repay money at the time of borrowing and lending transactions, even if the borrower did not repay money thereafter, this is merely a non-performance of civil liability, and criminal fraud is not established (Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516 Decided April 28, 2016). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, the Defendant was proven to have obtained money by deceiving the victim without any intention or ability to repay as stated in the facts charged without any reasonable doubt.
It is difficult to see it.
1) The Defendant is running a business with the introduction of the victim around 201 and also carrying out family travel.