The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. A summary of the facts charged was ordered on July 19, 2012 by the Defendant to pay 20% per annum from the Busan District Court Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court to the effect that the Defendant would pay 82 million won and delayed payment damages at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the day of complete payment.

On August 30, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would have paid money to the victim C in return for the payment of money: (a) the Defendant would have directly received money from the victim C; and (b) the Defendant would have paid money at the latest on the due date for repayment; and (c) the Defendant would have paid money at the latest.”

However, even if the defendant is postponed to fulfill his obligation by the victim, he did not have any intention or ability to repay the obligation because there is no particular property or income.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, deceiving the victim and had the victim withdraw all civil litigation related to the payment order around August 30, 2012. The Defendant was granted a grace period until October 20, 2012 for the amount of 25 million won from the victim; until December 20, 2012 for the amount of 25 million won; until December 20, 2012 for the amount of 25 million won; until February 1, 2013 for the amount of 25 million won; until February 1, 2013 for the amount of 10 million won; and until February 20, 2013 for the amount of 10 million won.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. Meanwhile, the recognition of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the Defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud.