Defendants were not only more than 10 billion won of the debt of J and Defendant A compared to the assets, but also the site of the instant factory was sold around April 2014, and even if the goods were supplied from the victim G, the Defendants did not intend or have the ability to continue to operate the factory under the name of J and pay the price normally.

Nevertheless, at around May 2014, the Defendants conspired to operate the J Office located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City I, and received wood of KRW 196,726,181, around May 2014 from the injured party by making a false statement as if they would normally pay the price of goods, and then received wood of KRW 214,026,084, around June 2014, around 2014; KRW 146,010,038, around August 2014; KRW 153,150,124, around September 153, 2014; and KRW 793,14,091 from the injured party.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to receive property from the injured party.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, is to 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 transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. In the transaction of goods, the establishment of fraud by defraudation is determined by whether there was an intentional intent to defraud the goods, etc. from the damaged party by making a false statement as if the Defendant were to pay the price of goods to the injured party even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price of goods at the time of the transaction. Therefore, it is impossible

Therefore, it cannot be deemed a crime of fraud (Supreme Court Decision 97Do2630 delivered on January 20, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265 delivered on January 24, 2003).