The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a former operator of the Art Research Institute.

On March 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant shall move to a private teaching institute under the name of a security deposit, make an investment of KRW 30 million in the name of a security deposit, give 10% of the net profit of a week, grant a notarized deposit, and make a full repayment within one month if the problem arises.”

However, at the time of fact, the personal obligation of the defendant was reached 300 million won, and the private teaching institute operated by the defendant was also accumulated by the enemy and making it difficult to yield profits because of the occurrence of losses equivalent to 6 million won per month, so there was no intention or ability to pay profits or repay investment money even if the victim received money under the pretext of investment.

Nevertheless, on April 16, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 30 million (10 million) through three times in total from the victim, such as receiving KRW 10 million in cash from the victim on or around April 16, 2012, and acquired it by deception.

2. The determination of fraud is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing such act of disposal, and thereby obtaining property or pecuniary profit. The causal relationship between deception, mistake, and property disposal act exists. On the other hand, whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake to another person, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and property disposal act should be determined generally and objectively, taking into account the situation of the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc. at the time of the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do1872 delivered on March 8, 1988). Therefore, in a case where the Defendant’s act of disposal of the victim’s property or the Defendant’s act causing such disposal of property was committed under close relation with the failure or performance of any business that the Defendant plans.