The defendant is innocent.

1. The facts charged are that the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay the price by no cash or credit card during the charge. However, around September 8, 2013, the Defendant ordered the victim’s “EM store” operated by the victim D located in Hanam-si, to pay the alcohol price as if he would pay the victim’s drinking value, and then acquired the victim’s pecuniary profit equivalent to KRW 440,000,000, equivalent to KRW 10,400,000 per 10,000 per 40,000 per 1,40,000 per 1,40,000 per 1,000,000 per 40,000,000 per 1,40,000 per 1,000,000 entertainment services, 100,0000 entertainment service provided by the victim D.

2. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, and the process of transaction execution

(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2630 delivered on January 20, 198, 2004; 2004Do3515 delivered on December 10, 2004, etc.). The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence investigated by the court: (i) the Defendant was receiving a monthly wage from F around the time of the instant case; (ii) the Defendant was drinking and selling credit at the victim’s main point several times before the instant case; (iii) the witness D testified to the effect that “the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he would have excessive drinking value; (iii) the Defendant was arrested as an flagrant offender and expressed his intention during the police investigation process; and (iv) the Defendant was receiving a punishment for the said offender at the time of the instant case at the time of the instant case at the time of the instant case at the time, and (v) the Defendant paid the payment at the time of the instant case at around KRW 30,000 after the date of the instant case at around 10, 2013.