Since there is an intention or ability to pay the drinking value, there was no intention or ability to defraud the accused. Therefore, there was no intention to defraud the accused.

The crime of interference with business was merely due to the fact that it was made in the process of resisting the drinking value of the crime of interference with business and did not reach the force, and there was no possibility of interference with business since there was no other customer at the time and no other customer was closed.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 3 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the judgment of fraud as to the assertion that there was no intention to defraudation of mistake or mistake of legal principles shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, environment, contents of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim, etc.

(2) In light of the following circumstances as revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e.,: (a) the Defendant, an employee of the main point of this case, notified the Defendant that the basic domain price of this case is somewhat high as KRW 50,000,00,000,00,000,000, and was well aware of the drinking value; (b) the Defendant refused to pay the drinking value after drinking both the alcoholic beverages and the alcoholic beverages; (c) the Defendant refused to pay the drinking value after drinking; (d) the Plaintiff did not pay the drinking value to D even if the main point of this case had taken place with D, and (d) the amount of eight months,00,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000 won.

The "compact" of the crime of interference with business with respect to the assertion that it did not reach the interference with business means a person.