beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant engaged in the miscellaneous retail business, such as clothes and cosmetics, and, in fact, concluded a sub-contract with the victim non-victim Mable Social Services Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) on the part of the vehicle, such as at least 2 billion won in total, and at least 20 million won in interest that should be paid monthly, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the installment. In fact, the Defendant was planning to provide funds by way of immediately sending the vehicle purchased through the installment contract to the borrower immediately.
On August 16, 2013, when the Defendant entered into a sub-contract to drive a vehicle to employees of the victim company into a D Exclusive Market located in Gwangju Nam-gu, Gwangju, by deceiving him/her in a manner of making it possible to pay each month in good faith, and he/she entered into a sub-contract to pay KRW 1,181,311 per month with the above non-employee and then received delivery of one car of KRW 58,00,000 at the market price (hereinafter “automobile of this case”).
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. Determination
A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the 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, unless the defendant makes a confession.
The conviction of a single letter of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's benefit. This also applies to the recognition of a criminal intent, which is a subjective element of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2255, Jul. 23, 2015).