It is difficult to see that a criminal defendant committed a crime of fraud merely because it was difficult to view that he/she had an intent and ability to repay the price at the time of the transaction with the victim, but it was impossible to pay the price by temporary light of financing.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. The judgment of the court below, comprehensively taking account of each evidence as indicated in the judgment, reveals the following circumstances: (a) the defendant made a false statement as if there was a factory owned and operated by D directly by D to the victim; (b) it became an important motive for the victim to deliver the original unit to D; (c) D sold the clothing produced by the original unit supplied by the victim to the victim without any property other than the small-sum sales claim at the time of receiving the original unit from the damaged party; and (d) the defendant paid part of the sales price of the clothing produced by the original unit supplied by D; and (e) the delivery company that received the clothing, etc. produced D failed to pay the original unit on the date promised by the victim; and therefore, (c) it seems practically impossible for the defendant to pay the original unit on the date promised by the victim; and (d) the defendant was prevented from paying the original unit

In light of the fact that the claim was made after a considerable period from the date on which the victim promised to pay the original amount to the victim, H-related work did not have an intention or ability to pay the original amount to the defendant at the time when the defendant was supplied with the original amount to the victim.

It is reasonable to see that the price would not be paid on the date of payment, and that the victim knew that the price would not be paid, and received the original order from the victim with the victim's implied consent.