Defendant used investment money for a purpose unrelated to it, and did not have sufficient means to cover the original purpose.

The defendant did not have the ability to pay profits even if the performance has been achieved as scheduled, due to the lack of office operating expenses and personnel expenses, and there was a situation that the defendant should use the investment funds for an urgent purpose.

Defendant was unable to hold the instant performance as scheduled by paying the contribution fee, etc. normally, and in the event of no performance, it was possible for the Defendant to return the investment fund to the victim, but the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to return it.

The criminal intent of defraudation is recognized for the accused.

2. If the reasoning for innocence revealed by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court are combined, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was not proven without reasonable doubt and to hold the Defendant not guilty.

There is no evidence that the Defendant used the investment money for the repayment of personal obligations as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant received investment from AC (hereinafter referred to as "AC") and paid the remainder of 300,000 won of the investment money.

It is difficult to view that the defendant did not have any intent to remit money to the U.S. Planning Agency even if he received the investment money.

Defendant continuously revised the JJ and the contract, and eventually, the Defendant paid the full amount of one million U.S. contribution fee to the J.

It is difficult to say that the delay of performance is caused by the refusal, etc. of the U.S. list by the U.S. test, etc. of North Korea, and it is difficult for the defendant to expect the performance from the beginning.