The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant did not have income in 2014 and did not pay resident tax, etc., and as such, the Defendant was responsible for the liability equivalent to KRW 15 million, so even if having taken over the PC from the victim C, there was no intention or ability to pay monthly the sales price.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in the “EPC room” operated by the injured party in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, on June 20, 2014, paid the victim the amount of the PC sales amount at KRW 32 million and the amount of the PC sales amount at KRW 16 times each month from October 24, 2014 to January 24, 2016.

In the event of two-time arrears of the purchase price, the sales contract was invalidated and the PC will be returned without any condition.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired pecuniary benefits by taking over the PC room equivalent to KRW 32 million from the victim.

2. Determination:

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should 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 victim before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do74, May 14, 2004; 2006Do8418, Apr. 27, 2007). In a criminal trial, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the authenticity of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and even if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 206).