The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant borrowed a small amount of money from the victim B (500,000 won) and was unable to pay the borrowed money from the Defendant at the right time to be forgotten; (b) but at the time of the next use, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation by the Defendant, but had the ability or intent

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On June 5, 2015, the Defendant attempted to prepare for the management of the Internet SNS Kakaox to the victim B (n, 34 years of age) (hereinafter “victims”) by means of contribution to the broadcast of the children (hereinafter “the victim”).

The money needs money.

By the next week, 500,000 won were borrowed from the next week.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt of the Su million won even if he borrowed money from the damaged person in the absence of any specific income and property.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 500,000 won from the victim to the Gwangju Bank Account (C) in the name of the Defendant, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged based on the duly adopted evidence.

3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. Meanwhile, the conviction ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the interest of the Defendant, which is a subjective element of the crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2255, Jul. 23, 2015).