However, in fact, the Defendant, at the time, did not have good financial situation of D, and, around October 21, 2016, decided to transfer the right to lease the site of the company’s factory to another person. Since it was planned to sell the company’s assets, etc. to another person, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the price normally even if he was supplied with steel materials from the victim B corporation.

The Defendant was supplied with steel materials worth KRW 135,211,945 in total four times from the victim B and the victim E, including being supplied with sn beam steel materials equivalent to KRW 20,012,850 at the time of the above day from the victim B, and from that time until December 20, 2016, the Defendant was supplied with steel materials worth KRW 135,211,945 in total from the victim B and the victim E.

Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victims to receive property.

2. From May 2016, the Defendant received steel materials from the victims from the victims, supplied them to F, and then approved the price for the goods to the victims.

In this regard, the portion of the supply on November 2016 and December 2, 2016 was not paid by F to the victims because it was not paid by F, and there was no intention of defraudation.

3. 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, insofar as the Defendant does not confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009). 2) Whether the crime of fraud by defraudation of transaction goods is established is based on the price of supplied goods to the Defendant as of the time of transaction.