On June 2017, the Defendant, at the instant company office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around the end of June, 2017, concluded that “The Defendant would issue an electronic bond and pay the construction cost without fail after six months after the receipt of the electronic bond if the instant interior interior interior interior interior decoration, such as the F store G clothes store and H store, is removed.”

However, in fact, the instant company had been in excess of the debt amounting to approximately KRW 100 billion due to the issuance of electronic bonds at the time of the issuance of the electronic bonds, and had been under pressure due to the hostile management since 2015, and had been urged to repay the principal amount of KRW 40 billion due to the bank account loan. Thus, even if the victim had been under construction for clothing sales room, there was no intention or ability to pay the said amount properly.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim take care of, from July 31, 2017 to September 28, 2017, to have the victim take care of the total amount of the construction cost at 15 stores, such as F Point G, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes List, and had the victim take care of the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration work equivalent to KRW 182,490,00,000, and did not pay the price, thereby acquiring the same pecuniary benefit.

2. At the time of the instant case, there was no intention to commit fraud by the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. The existence of the crime 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 before and after the crime, the environment, the details and contents of the crime, the process of transaction execution, the relationship with the victim, etc. unless the Defendant

Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 Decided March 26, 1996; Supreme Court Decision 2015Do184 Decided June 11, 2015