The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not pay the cost of household production to the victim is merely a non-performance of civil liability, and the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation, and the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and was willing and ability to pay the cost at the time of requesting the production

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by reliance on the statements made by the victim with low credibility is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The deception as a requirement for fraud means all affirmative or passive acts that have a good faith and sincerity to observe each other in the transactional relationship with property. It is sufficient that the deception does not necessarily require false indication on the essential part of the juristic act, and it is true that it constitutes the basis of judgment for an actor to conduct a disposal of property that the actor wishes by omitting the other party into mistake (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, insofar as the defendant does not confession, the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective element for fraud, is bound to be determined by taking into account such objective circumstances as the personal history of the defendant before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, and its criminal intent is not conclusive intention, but dolusent intent, and it is sufficient that the defendant lawfully prepared and supplied the content of the contract with the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008, 207).