beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On April 16, 2015, the Defendant pretended that the victim C would normally pay aggregate by posting a telephone to the victim C, and sent aggregate to the victim as “B Company A is the victim of the D company, and as aggregate needs to be extracted from the E to the waterway in e in ethic case.
G. “F.D.” makes a false statement.
However, at the time, the Defendant was not a person belonging to the D Company, and the above construction site was a construction work without any relation with the D Company. The Defendant was already leaving the D Company around 2014 and was working in a personal location. The Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the amount normally even if he was supplied with aggregate from around 2012 to the damaged party due to the lack of circumstances such as temporary payment of the wages of the workers employed at the construction site.
As above, the Defendant: (a) induced the victim and received aggregate amounting to KRW 374,00 from the victim of the damage at the construction site above; (b) received aggregate amounting to KRW 374,00 from around that time to June 10, 2016 the aggregate market price of KRW 4,564,50 in the same way; and (c) received aggregate supply from around that time to June 10, 2016.
2. Determination
A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction execution, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004, etc.). Whether the crime of fraud is established shall be determined as at the time of the act, and it shall not be punished for fraud on the ground that the Defendant’s non-performance status may result in changes in economic circumstances after the act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5618, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, the burden of proof for the crime charged in a criminal trial lies in the prosecutor, and the recognition of conviction may be a reasonable doubt for a judge.