2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant had the criminal intent of defraudation, such as having no ability to pay the drinking value at the date of the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Although the Defendant had consistently had the ability to pay the drinking value at the time, the Defendant stated that he was merely refusing the calculation by filing a complaint against his attitude (the purport that the Defendant, even if he did not drink, did not do so, made calculation).

② According to the description of the Defendant’s Postal Card transactions, the said statement is consistent with the Defendant’s deposit sufficient to pay the above mentioned value to the Defendant’s account at the time.

③ As evidence consistent with the facts charged, it is difficult to believe the above evidence as it is because the victim is present at this court as a witness and made a statement to the effect that the victim cannot memory any situation at the time of appearance, although there is a statement, receipt, etc. of the victim, and only the investigation report, etc. that the victim did not pay the money despite the dispatch and solicitation of the police officer, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had no intention to pay the money at the time of the receipt.

3. According to the conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and publicly announced the summary of this judgment pursuant to Article 58