The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and because he had the intent and ability to pay the insurance premium at the time of committing the instant crime, there was no intention to commit fraud against the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant is the actual operator of the insurance selling company D (hereinafter “D”) that was located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C.

On October 2015, the Defendant, at the D office, made a false statement to the victim E that “F would pay high-amount of insurance premiums to the victim E for the management of the company, as the insurance company would subscribe to life insurance.” The insurance premiums will be paid by the company.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the premium normally even if the victim received or paid the insurance premium as an insurance solicitor.

On December 1, 2015, the Defendant was issued KRW 2 million with the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and KRW 7 million with the Defendant’s account under the name of G employee on December 2, 2015, among the allowances for subscription to life insurance received by the victim from an insurance company.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by taking account of the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

C. Whether fraud is established shall be determined at the time of such act, and the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of fraud on the ground that the change in economic circumstances after such act led to the non-performance of obligation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5618 Decided September 25, 2008. In full view of the following facts and circumstances inferred from the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not have the intent or ability to pay the premium.