beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On August 6, 2007, the summary of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant did not have the intention or ability to sell the vehicle by accepting the vehicle, and, at the D office located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the victim E, “I will repair and sell the vehicle with a cash of KRW 1.3 million in addition to the vehicle with a cash of KRW 1.5 million in the flux, i.e., repair and sell the vehicle with a face value of KRW 2.5 vehicles in the flux, i.e., the Defendant acquired from the victim the vehicle of KRW 7 million and the vehicle of KRW 13 million in two times at that time.
2. Although the defendant and the defense counsel had the intention or ability to repair and sell the vehicle at the time of concluding the contract, the repair is delayed due to the problem of securing parts, etc., and it is impossible to perform as it was impossible to receive the documents necessary for registration from the importer of the vehicle because it was not a civil issue, and the criminal intent of deceiving the defendant is not recognized.
3. Determination
A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud in the law, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the Defendant is led to confession. Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the Defendant, and the same is also applicable to the recognition of the criminal intent
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6659, May 10, 2012). B.
However, considering the following circumstances revealed by the record of these legal principles, the defendant can only be held liable under the civil law for failing to perform his/her contractual obligations, and the contract is concluded.