A. Fact-finding that the defendant received 2 million won advance payment from the victim; however, on the ground that the defendant thought that the defendant was too dead, I would like to act on behalf of the defendant; the victim would not receive advance payment when I worked for more than two months; and I actually worked for more than two months.

Therefore, there is no intention to commit fraud against the accused.

B. In light of the fact that the monthly rent payment of the money received from the victim of unfair sentencing was used, that it does not belong to the victim from the beginning, and that the defendant was working for more than one month, the sentence of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11718, Apr. 9, 2009). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court: (i) the Defendant had contacted the victim with an advertisement necessary for employees at E entertainment tavern operated by the victim on or around February 7, 2011; (ii) the victim gave KRW 2 million to the Defendant through J around February 10, 201; (iii) the Defendant was able to receive the remainder of the entertainment drinking house from Seoul by April 10, 201; and (iv) the Defendant was able to receive the remainder of the entertainment drinking house from Seoul.