1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant did not have any property, there is no particular income, and there is no other fact that the Defendant takes over a mine or operates a mine, and even if he borrowed money from a financial institution, the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repay money. However, on November 201, 2013, it is necessary to operate operating expenses and down payment in order to operate the mine business in the mutual in the mutual infaction in Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong (Seoul Samsungdong).

In order to borrow KRW 190,000,000 from a Jeju mine and take over the mine, it will receive a loan from a financial institution and repay it until December 5, 2013.

“In doing so, on November 5, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 30 million from the damaged person to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of the Defendant’s business fund in the name of the Korea Exchange Bank account, and received KRW 160 million from the same account on November 6, 2013 to the same account on the same date as the mining contract deposit, and acquired pecuniary profits equivalent to that amount by remitting KRW 160 million as the mining contract deposit.

2. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) obtained money by deceiving a victim as stated in the facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant intended to raise the acquisition fund of a mine.

The defendant did not recognize this as the defendant, and the defendant knew this.

On the ground that it is reasonable to view the facts charged of this case as guilty.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). One part of the conviction leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt by a judge.