beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the Defendant, from June 2016 to June 1, 2016, who works as the representative director of C’s sales management team and D’s affiliated company related to C’s agency business from March 2017, as the head of the sales management team of C’s domestic sales company of “B,” a company affiliated to C’s agency business.
From June 2017 to July 27, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If 30 million won is paid to the said F, B will establish a contract deposit” in consultation with F and B agencies on the establishment of the victim E-based personnel in charge of the victim E side in Seoul or Gyeonggi-si, and several occasions through telephone, e-mail, interview, etc. between them.”
However, in fact, since from May 2017, the Defendant was already aware of the fact that he was unable to receive electronic equipment from C in a normal condition, and that some agencies began to accept it, such as failure to pay C staff monthly wage at the time, etc., and thus, the Defendant had no intention or ability to open B agency to the victim even if he was paid the agency deposit.
On July 28, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 10 million in total from the victim to the same account on August 29, 2017, from the new bank account (H) under the name of D Co., Ltd. on the pretext of a deposit in D office located in Gyeonggi-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Sung-gu, G, the Defendant received KRW 30 million in total from the victim on or around August 29, 2017.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true enough to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty, it cannot be determined with the benefit of the defendant.
Supreme Court Decision 2010.10