However, even if the defendant received the payment from the customer, he was thought to be appropriated for the settlement of the goods sold by him, and was in a position to be used as repayment even if the transaction partner is paid the sales proceeds because the transaction partner is considerably liable for the payment, and there was no intention or ability to pay the payment because there was no other means of payment.

Nevertheless, as above, the Defendant was issued a letter of significance in Chapter 5,683, a total of KRW 227,313,000, a market price of which was 24,136,000 from May 2, 2012, on 12 occasions, from the time when he was supplied with Titts 552, the market price of which was equivalent to KRW 24,136,00 on the same day, in preference to the debt that the Defendant had already been on the part of the previous victim, as described in the list of crimes.

2. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a willful negligence is sufficient.

In particular, the establishment of fraud by defraudation in a commodity transaction relationship should be determined by whether there was an intention or ability to pay the price of supplied goods to the victim as if the victim were to pay the price of supplied goods, even though there was no intention or ability to do so at the time of the transaction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008). The record reveals the following circumstances.