beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged stated as follows: (a) around October 31, 2014, the Defendant: (b) around October 07, 2014, the Defendant stated that, at the receiving point of Suwon-si, Pal. 11-12, 11-12, the second floor of Yongsan-si, Co., Ltd., Ltd. 203, the Defendant would faithfully repay KRW 181,000,000 each fifteenth day of October 31, 2017 to the staff in charge of name in charge.”
However, the defendant did not pay 10 million won a month, and two retired employees did not pay 41 million won a retirement allowance, but did not pay it properly, and the company did not have any intention or ability to pay it even if it borrowed money from the call loan because it was required to lend it to the company due to the business difficulties.
The Defendant, by deceiving the above employees, received 4 million won from the call loan of the Co., Ltd. and acquired it by fraud.
2. The defendant alleged that the defendant did not speak that "the defendant is punished in 10 million won a month," and that the defendant did not have any intent to repay the loan at the time of the loan, and therefore, he did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation.
3. Whether fraud is established through the deception of the borrowed money should be determined at the time of borrowing. Thus, even if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing, if he did not repay the borrowed money thereafter, it is merely a civil default, and it cannot be said that criminal fraud is established. On the other hand, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial ability before and after the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, the process of the transaction, the relationship with the victim
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034, Mar. 26, 1996). According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant was on March 2014.