The part of the fraud against Defendant A is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. As to Defendant A’s fraud

A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person into mistake, inducing a dispositive act to obtain property or pecuniary advantage. Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake to another person, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and the dispositive act should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do8829 Decided October 13, 2011. Meanwhile, in a civil monetary lending relationship, the criminal intent of defraudation of the borrowed money cannot be acknowledged with nonperformance of obligation. However, in a case where the Defendant borrowed money by pretending that he would repay the money in the absence of the intent of full repayment or the ability of repayment within the due date as agreed upon by the loan, the criminal intent of defraudation may be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 83Do1048 delivered on August 23, 1983; 86Do1227 delivered on September 9, 1986, etc.). In addition, whether fraud is established through the deception of property shall be determined at the time of receipt of the property. In addition, as long as the defendant does not make a confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account objective circumstances such as the criminal history before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do2630 delivered on January 20, 1998, etc.). B.

The court below held that Defendant A was unable to fully repay 282 million assistance from the victim E in the first instance court, but the Defendant was also engaged in the prefabricated plant and neighborhood living facilities construction work at the time of the victim’s new construction construction work, and thus, the Defendant received the construction cost and received the construction cost for the new housing construction work for the victim.