However, even if the defendant received the sn beam from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to purchase the sn beam, it was thought that the defendant purchased the sn beam from the victim and applied the sn beam to the existing claim (10 million won).

On September 6, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 15 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the said D.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Determination:

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime 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 the transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant is led to confession. In the goods transaction relationship, the establishment of the crime of fraud by defraudation shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire the price of goods from the victim by deceiving the victim, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to deliver the goods at the time of the transaction. As such, it shall not be deemed that the payment of the goods was made impossible to deliver the goods

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7481 Decided November 24, 2005, etc.).B.

The defendant consistently received KRW 15 million from E as the purchase price of the s beam beam from E to this court. However, the defendant asserts that there is no intention to acquire the s beam from E because he/she had the intent and ability to purchase the s beamline, so he/she has no intention to acquire it.

C. We examine the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.