The defendant shall be innocent.

1. From November 2013, the Defendant deposited KRW 500,000,00 to E, as a person who had been entrusted with the management of a D hotel in Busan City as an owner of the D hotel from November 1, 2013.

On October 2014, the Defendant, at the G amusement station operated by the Victim F in the above hotel, concluded that “I would be exempted from H’s obligation so that H would operate a entertainment store in another place in lieu of H’s payment of KRW 75 million to the victim immediately after receiving the refund of KRW 500 million from E.,” from the G amusement station operated by the victim F in the above hotel.

However, on August 14, 2014, the Defendant had already transferred the claim for return of KRW 500 million to I, the owner of an entertainment shop, which the Defendant had been seeking to acquire and operate the above deposit, and thus, the Defendant could not receive the above KRW 500 million from E, and there was no other property, so there was no intention or ability to repay the amount of KRW 75 million to the victim on behalf of H.

The Defendant had the victim exempt the victim from the obligation of KRW 75 million to H on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and let H gain profit equivalent to KRW 75 million.

2. Determination

A. In fraud, the term “property interest” includes not only active interests such as acquisition of claims or provision of security, but also passive interests such as exemption of obligations. However, in order to establish fraud concerning property interest, which is the exemption of obligations beyond the degree of simple deferment of repayment, there is a disposal act by a creditor who finally extinguishs or relieves the obligations due to deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8600, Dec. 24, 2008). This also requires a third party to take over the obligations of an existing debtor.