The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding assertion) can be acknowledged that the defendant supplied fresh fresh fresh fresh fresh freshs from the victim as shown in [Attachment 1] List of Crimes No. 1] as indicated in the decision of the court below. The following circumstances are as follows: ① the balance of the account used by the defendant at the time and time specified in the judgment of the court below, i.e., the financial situation of the defendant was difficult to exceed KRW 0-2 million; ② the amount of the goods not paid by the defendant exceeds the victim; ③ the defendant operated the "E that supplies food ingredients to the restaurant" to the victim although the defendant did not operate the "E", the defendant can be acknowledged that the defendant by deceiving the victim without the intent or ability to pay the fresh fresh fresh fregs or fregs at the time of receiving the goods supplied from the victim as stated in [Attachment 1] list No. 1 to 17.

2. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004). In the transaction of goods, whether the crime of fraud by defraudation is established shall be determined by whether the Defendant had the intention to acquire the goods from the victim by making a false statement as if the Defendant would have performed the price of goods, even though the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the price of goods as of the time of transaction. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the payment of the price of goods cannot be deemed to constitute

Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265 Delivered on January 24, 2003