The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On June 10, 2013, the Defendant was engaged in the commercial of high water in the name of C through D when smuggling around June 10, 2013.

As a person, in the above D, the victim E stated that he/she would have repaid money within one year from the loan to the victim E.

However, in fact, the Defendant was declared bankrupt on the grounds that he was unable to repay a debt of approximately KRW 600,000,000 or more, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt even if she borrowed money from the injured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 50 million won from the victim to the national bank account in the name of F around June 12, 2013 from the victim.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). In addition, in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to form such a degree of conviction, even if there is no suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, the interest of the Defendant shall be determined.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to prove that the criminal intent to acquire the defendant is beyond reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) The Defendant closed down his/her business on the ground that his/her obligation increases while operating a secondhand shop in his/her own name, and operated a secondhand shop in F’s name with the name of “D”. The victim himself/herself is the victim.