The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise, even though both the Defendant’s intent to acquire, dispose of, and causal relation are recognized.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant, and this is also the same in recognizing the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6349 Decided December 14, 2007, etc.). Based on the above legal principle, health class based on the above legal principle, E completed the manufacture of the instant structure according to the contract as properly mentioned by the court below, as well as notification company, demanded to deliver the instant structure to notification company, and the instant structure does not in itself mean that E or the Defendant does not have property value. Thus, even if E or the Defendant had a separate purpose to resolve the outstanding amount in relation to notification company, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had the scope of fraud, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to whether there exists a disposal act and a causal relationship.