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 establishment of fraud

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the 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. The intent of the crime is not a conclusive intention but a dolu

(2) In light of the legal principle of good faith, a person who receives property is obligated to inform the other party of such circumstances in advance of such circumstances in cases where the other party to a transaction is deemed not to be in a relationship with the other party to the transaction in question if the other party to the transaction would not have been in a certain situation but would have been in a relationship with the other party to the transaction in question. Thus, if the other party to the transaction would have been in a relationship with the other party to the transaction, the other party would not have been in a relation with the other party to the transaction in question, and the other party would not have been in a relation with the other party to the transaction in question.

It constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by disregarding the fact that the notice has to be given, but the notice has not been given.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5774 Decided October 28, 2005, etc.). B.

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found facts as stated in its reasoning, and the defendant secured sales by securing the prompt operation normalization of the second control plant, which he operated at the time, and the real operating plan is not prepared.