The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the legitimate evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found that the defendant had no intent or ability to purchase merchandise coupons at the time of receiving the transfer of the purchase price of merchandise coupons from the victim, but the court below acquitted the defendant by misunderstanding the fact, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact.

2. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: the defendant, who engages in the wholesale and retail business of gift certificates "C", has to pay interest of KRW 70 million on the defendant's personal debt and the above store operating expenses at the time, and there was no intention or ability to purchase gift certificates with money from others as the purchase price of gift certificates. The defendant stated on May 29, 2009 that "the defendant would purchase KRW 100,8840,000 as the purchase price of gift certificates to the victim D," and that "the defendant would purchase KRW 200 in the new gift certificates of KRW 100,000,000 as the purchase price of gift certificates from the victim's seat, which was remitted from the victim to the passbook of the national bank in the name of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits by deceiving the victim."

However, unless the defendant does not make a confession, the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is bound to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of performing transaction before and after the crime. In the goods transaction relationship, the establishment of fraud by deceptive means shall be determined by whether the defendant had intention or ability to pay the price of supplied goods to the victim as if he would have intention or ability to pay the price of supplied goods to the victim as at the time of the transaction. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that the crime of fraud was committed because it was impossible to pay the price of supplied goods due to changes in economic conditions after the delivery