beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is an agricultural wholesale retailer in the facts charged.
On June 28, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on June 28, 2012, the fact at the D market with Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, that “The Defendant, even if being supplied with a deadly by the victim E, did not have the intent or ability to pay the price to the victim; (b) provided that “I would immediately pay the price after a week of delivery of one ton of the deadly death” to the victim; and (c) provided the victim with one ton of the deadly death equivalent to KRW 9.18
2. Determination
A. Whether fraud is established through the deception of trading goods shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire goods from a victim by means of false words as if the victim would have performed the price of goods, even though there was no intent or ability to repay the price of goods at the time of transaction. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the crime of fraud is not established by making it impossible to repay the price of goods in lump sum due to changes in general circumstances, such as economic circumstances after delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1682, Jul. 23, 199; 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003). Meanwhile, insofar as the criminal intent to obtain through deception, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, does not lead to a determination by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial power, environment, details of the crime before and after the crime, the process of execution of transaction, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 95Do857 delivered on May 28, 1996, and Supreme Court Decision 97Do2630 delivered on January 20, 1998, etc.). B.
On the other hand, according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to pay the price of delivered goods one ton of the deadly death, which was finished from E on June 28, 2012, but did not pay the price of delivered goods after one week.
However, in addition to the records of the above evidence, the defendant (i) requested F to purchase the deadly gift to F, a broker around February 2012.