beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. A summary of the facts charged, around March 29, 2012, the Defendant stated that “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Gyeongnam-si, Gyeongnam-si, “The victim is a member of the F Housing Site Association, and a member of the F Housing Site Association will settle accounts on credit one occasion in the middle of credit transaction.”
However, the Defendant established the “F Housing Association Promotion Committee” with 4, G, etc. around that time, but there was no money that can be regularly paid such as service costs, and even if the Defendant received food on credit from the said victim due to no particular income, there was no intention or ability to pay the price once, as above, even if he did not receive food on credit from the said victim.
As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained meals of KRW 1,456,00 from March 29, 2012 to April 27, 2012 from the victim to the victim, thereby defrauding the victim.
2. Determination
A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s profit, and this is also the same in case of recognizing the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74 delivered on May 14, 2004, etc.). B.
However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by this Court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, is an urban development project promoted by United Nations Co., Ltd.