On January 209, the Defendant entered into an agency contract for electrical safety management (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the victim company as if he would normally pay electrical safety management agency fees to the above father and hospital located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

However, there was no intention or ability to pay agency fees.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving a person in charge of the victim company’s employees; and (b) had been provided by the victim company from January 2009 to April 2015, the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 2,1450,000,000 as an agent fee for the electrical safety management from around 65 months to April 2015; and (c) thereby acquired

2. The intent of fraud, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power before and after the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. In particular, the establishment of fraud through deception in the transaction of goods should be determined by whether the Defendant had an intention to acquire the goods from the damaged person by means of deception, even though there was no intent or ability to repay the price to the Defendant as at the time of the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008, etc.). In this context, in a continuous transaction of goods or services, the payment has been continuously made in accordance with the previous transaction method, but if the Defendant did not pay the price due to changes after the contract, barring special circumstances, such as the Defendant had been aware of the ability to pay the price at the time of the contract, the method of preparing the price, or the change of circumstances that could not pay the price.