Examining the evidence cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below in comparison with the records, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts against the defendant at the time of the first trial on the approval of the court below, and the crime of fraud is established in cases where others actively deception or have acquired property or property benefits, and even if they have paid compensation after the fact, it does not affect the establishment of the crime. Thus, even if the defendant received a request from the victim to pass the license examination as stated in the judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, and received a delivery of the money as stated in the judgment, even though he did not have the intent and ability to request it, if he did not comply with it, it would be possible to request it, and if he did not receive it from the victim, it would have caused the crime of fraud. The court decided to convert the above money which was already received by the victim with the knowledge of the failure to pass the pass notice, and therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint was brought about in the establishment of the above crime. Therefore, it is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)