The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the provisions of Articles 1 through 3, the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined after considering the objective circumstances such as the financial history of the accused before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, the process of transaction, the relationship with the victim, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do74, May 14, 2004; 2013Do12003, May 16, 2014). The lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant was fully aware that he/she received service charges from the victim without intent or ability to perform the instant service contract and acquired them by taking full account of the circumstances in its reasoning.

The judgment below

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court below maintained, is justifiable. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. In a case of fraud involving taking property advantage of the fourth point, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself constitutes a violation of the victim's property, thereby constituting a crime of fraud, and a considerable amount of consideration has been paid.

Even if the acquired money or the acquired money has been returned after the fact, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud, and even if a part of the acquired money has been returned in the crime of fraud, the acquired money is not the difference after deducting the amount returned from the money given by the victim.