The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud at the time of being supplied with the 19,800,000 won (hereinafter “the instant damage amount”) by the victim ELNS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) (hereinafter “the instant devices”).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 10,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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 the transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant is led to confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2630, Jan. 20, 198; 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004). In the transaction relationship of goods, whether the crime of fraud by defraudation is established shall be determined by determining whether the Defendant had intent or ability to pay the price of goods to the victim, even though the Defendant did not have intent or ability to pay the price of goods at the time of the transaction, by making the false statement as if the Defendant would have intended to pay the price of goods to the victim, thereby making it impossible to pay the price

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5265, Nov. 24, 2005; 2005Do7481, Nov. 24, 2005)

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

1) E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) in which the Defendant actually operated.

) both Company and H (hereinafter “H”)

The relationship with the defendant, the details of the existing transaction between the defendant and the victim, the circumstances and background of the defendant being provided with the device of this case from the victim.