Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Fact-misunderstanding (with regard to fraud) that the Defendant was unable to pay the principal price to the victim, but it was true that there was a mobile principal right at the time, and that there was no intention of defraudation only to make payment by making use of it or requesting it to the family members.

On the contrary, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should 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 sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to do so. In particular, in the transaction of goods, whether the crime of fraud by defraudation was established shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to obtain money from the damaged person by making a false statement as if the Defendant would have not expressed an intent or ability to repay the price of goods to the victim as at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3775, Nov. 27, 2014). The lower court duly adopted and investigated by the evidence and, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, even if the Defendant had an intention to acquire

Recognized.

The defendant has the intention to commit the crime of defraudation even if the defendant is not guilty.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is a mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) According to the victim C’s written statement (No. 2 of the evidence record No. 5 of the record), the Defendant would pay the following amounts after the week.

“Although it appears to the effect that “,” an employee of the gas station refuses to do so and transfers the account.