The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even if the defendant re-purchases from the victim of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) around June 201, which was at the time of committing the crime of defraudation, around June 201, the defendant could sufficiently be recognized that the victim had no capability to pay the purchase price and there was no intent to pay the purchase price. However, the defendant deceiving the victim.

The judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant was not guilty of fraud or the defendant was not guilty is erroneous and has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The first instance court’s determination on the establishment of a crime of fraud shall be determined as at the time of the act, and the establishment of a crime of fraud may not be punished as a crime of fraud on the ground that the Defendant was in a state of default due to changes in economic conditions after the act was committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5618, Sept. 25, 2008). In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone led the Defendant to the victim

The court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that it is difficult to view that the fact that the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire fraud was sufficiently proven without reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

B. In the judgment of this court, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

Supreme Court on October 11, 2012