The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) 23:00 of the facts charged, the Defendant was boarding a D taxi operated by the victim C (58 years of age) in the vicinity of the Pyeongtaek-si located in Ansan-si; (b) was going to the entrance of the apartment unit E located in the Gu, and the Defendant was going to run a taxi from around 23:20 of the same day to arrive at the destination; and (c) 7,300 won of the taxi fee was not paid; and (d) was taking property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial shall be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt shall be based on the evidence of probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, as long as the defendant does not make a confession, the subjective constituent elements of fraud shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, etc.

B. According to the health team and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in this case, the defendant is deemed to have failed to pay KRW 7,400, but the defendant denies the criminal intent to acquire the taxi by asserting that the defendant "it is not a taxi with a wall and a bank under the influence of alcohol and did not pay the taxi fee from the beginning." ① At the time of the occurrence of this case, the defendant was only taken the defendant at the time of the occurrence of this case, and the defendant talked about the defendant's destination to board the taxi (the legal statement of the witness C), ② the defendant did not have any means of approval because he did not have any means of approval because he did not have any means of approval. In light of the defendant's age, character and conduct, and circumstances before and after the occurrence of this case, etc., it is doubtful that the defendant did not have the door and the wall prior to leaving the taxi and does not have any place to leave the taxi, and the police is not a police ③.