The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of the “E” on the fourth floor of the D Building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, who is engaged in the business of installing solar power generators.

On July 31, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G located in the Yangju-si, stating that “The Defendant would have installed solar power facilities of 40kw in the building of the said victim within one to two months, so it would be changed to the installation cost of KRW 82 million.” The Defendant drafted a written contract for the installation of solar power generation to the same purport.

However, the Defendant was thought to use money from the victims due to the lack of operating funds at the time for the purpose of paying debts, and there was no ability to properly design the above structures to install solar power infrastructure, and the above E did not have the intent or ability to install solar power infrastructure in 40 kmw, such as closing the business around July 2015.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received the amount of KRW 8 million in total, including KRW 19.5 million in the same day, KRW 10 million in September 3, 2015, and KRW 19.5 million in October 26, 2015 from the victim as the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of each Defendant, under the pretext of the cost for the installation of solar power infrastructure from the victim.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and content of the crime, and the process of transaction performance, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. Meanwhile, the recognition of conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the Defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s benefit as a subjective element of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6659, May 10, 2012).