beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, while operating C around December 19, 2014, called the victim E at the construction site located in ASEAN-si, Chungcheongnam-si, ASEAN-si, and called the victim E with telephone, and “the construction of the removal of the buildings located in ASEAN-si, ASEAN-si, and G-type removal of the G-type hall located in Cheongju-si, Chungcheongnam-si.” The Defendant would receive construction cost from the Defendant Co., Ltd., a contractor for the removal of the G-type hall and receive construction cost from the Defendant, a contractor for the removal of the G-type hall to the market price (as approximately KRW 1,00,00).
“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”
However, the defendant at the time of the aggravation of the management of C's business and the employee's monthly wage was not known. However, due to taxes in arrears, etc., the defendant was under bad credit standing with approximately KRW 70 million, and the construction cost paid by the defendant was under the duty to pay to the other parties.
Even if the damaged party does not have the intention or ability to pay the price.
The Defendant was provided with approximately KRW 11 million from December 20, 2014 to January 15, 2015 by the damaged party.
In this respect, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.
2. The existence of the crime of fraud, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship with the complainant, unless the defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2662, Jul. 7, 1987; 95Do3034, Mar. 26, 1996). The establishment of fraud by defraudation of property should be determined at the time of receiving the property. Thus, if the defendant had the intent and ability to perform the consideration at the time of receiving the property from the complainant, it shall not be performed after the change of economic situation.