If an investment of KRW 52 million is made, it is intended to set up four self-employed machine in a military unit within 30 days so that the profit of KRW 675,00 per unit can be made on a monthly basis.

“........... Then, the franchise agreement was drawn up on February 12, 2016.

However, there was no fact that the Defendant entered into a contract for the installation of a self-reader with a military unit, and there was no fact that the Defendant requested the production of a self-reader, and was planned to use the rent and wage payment of the office rent and the money received from the Defendant, and thus, there was no intention or ability to allow the operation of a self-reader as a promise even if the Defendant received a down payment from the injured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, received money from the injured party to a new bank account under the name of the C on February 17, 2016 (State) from the injured party and acquired money by remittance of KRW 52 million.

2. After entering into a franchise agreement with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) on February 12, 2016 with the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was unable to perform his/her contractual obligations due to unexpected circumstances; there was no fact of deception; and there was no criminal intent of defraudation; thus, the verdict of innocence should be pronounced.

3. Determination

A. The scope of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to make a transaction from the complainant by making a false statement about the complainant, even though the defendant was not able to repay as at the time of the transaction, even though there was no intent and ability to repay to the defendant as at the time of the transaction. If it was capable at the time of the transaction but it was impossible to do so after the change in economic conditions, etc