Nevertheless, the Defendant, as if he were to pay the price of supplied goods within the due date, paid the victim the amount of steel equivalent to KRW 15,50,810, around August 29, 201; paid the steel materials equivalent to KRW 773,663 on September 1, 201; paid the steel materials equivalent to KRW 8,191,90 on September 22, 201; paid the steel materials equivalent to KRW 12,638,780 on September 29, 201; paid the amount of steel materials equivalent to KRW 12,638,780 on October 10, 201; paid the total amount of KRW 43,782,420 on five occasions, including receiving the steel materials equivalent to KRW 6,627,280 on October 10, 201; paid the remainder of the goods under the name of KRW 301,278,200.

2. Determination is based on the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, so long as the defendant does not make a confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

The conviction of a single part of the crime ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant. The same applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6011, Aug. 23, 2013). Whether the crime of fraud by deception of transaction goods is established is based on the time of transaction.