The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that at the time when the Defendant requested the victim E to provide the service, the Defendant was in bad credit standing at the time when the Defendant was liable to pay 50 million won or more, and the claim can be seized at any time because the Defendant was in arrears equivalent to value-added tax 27 million won or more.

As such, the Defendant had no means to carry out the removal construction by himself, it should be deemed that there was a willful negligence in regard to the fact that the service payment cannot be paid even if the Defendant received the service from the victim E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is insufficient to prove the criminal intention of defraudation is erroneous and has affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case, around December 19, 2014, the Defendant, while operating C around December 19, 2014, made a false statement to the effect that “The victim E calls at the construction site located in Asan City D and the G wedding hall removal works located in Cheongju City F are being carried out, and that “I will receive construction payment from the Defendant Co., Ltd., the contractor for the removal of G wedding hall, and add the excavation cost to the market price ( approximately 11 million won)” in order to bring the drilling and remove it.

However, at the time, the Defendant was in a situation where C’s business management has deteriorated and the employee’s monthly wage was not known, and the Defendant was a bad credit holder with approximately KRW 70 million due to taxes in arrears, etc., and the construction cost that was paid by the Defendant was paid to the other subsidiaries, and the victim did not have any intent or ability to pay the price even if the removal work was performed.

The Defendant was provided by the victim with approximately KRW 11 million from December 20, 2014 to January 15, 2015.

In this respect, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment.