The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that, around June 2016, the Defendant was unable to compensate for damages even if the sales amount came to reach about KRW 2.8 billion due to a sudden aggravation of the financial status, using card loan. In August 2016, the Defendant was in a structure that could not make up for damages even if the sales amount came to reach about KRW 2.8 billion.

Nevertheless, it can be recognized that the victims' continuous supply of drugs or settlement of payments by credit card is a deceptive act and the criminal intent of fraud is also recognized.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charges of this case.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial power of the accused, etc. before and after the crime, the environment, the details and details of the crime, and the process of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction that the judge is true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as a criminal intent, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do74, May 14, 2004; 205Do122, Oct. 14, 2005).