beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On January 13, 2010, the Defendant stated that “On deposit of KRW 20 million with the victim C, the Defendant shall have the right to solely dispose of the scrap metal generated at the construction site of the E Company E Company’s apartment apartment site located in the 19:00 city Municipal Ordinance-Dong on 19:00, the Defendant shall be entitled to solely dispose of the scrap metal generated at the construction site of the E Company E Company’s apartment site in the 19:0 city Municipal Ordinance-Dong.”
However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the ability to solely handle scrap metal generated from the apartment construction site at the above apartment site, and even if the Defendant received money from the victim as a transfer of the right to solely handle scrap metal, it was thought to use it as living expenses, etc., and there was no intention or ability to return the money due to no particular property.
The Defendant received from the victim the money of KRW 10 million on January 13, 2010 and KRW 10 million on January 20, 201, respectively, under the name of transfer of the right to dispose of scrap metal at the construction site of the above apartment complex.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. Determination
A. The existence of a mistake related to the exclusive purchase right of scrap metal is established by deceiving others, leaving them into mistake, and inducing a dispositive act, thereby receiving property or obtaining pecuniary gains.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8829, Oct. 13, 2011). Moreover, the recognition of conviction ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant, and the same applies to fraud.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6659 Decided May 10, 2012). According to the evidence examined by this court, the Defendant and the victim are the Defendant, the buyer, and the victim around January 2012.