On the other hand, since the goods supply contract itself provides the victim company with the goods by June 10, 2015, up to June 20, 2015, the victim company paid the price of the goods by June 20, 2015, the 10th day after the provision of the goods. Thus, if it is difficult to pay the price of the goods by the time objectively, the fraud of the defendant should be recognized.

In doing so, in light of the objective circumstances related to D's ability to repay, such as the state of debt at the time of the instant contract and the progress of the lawsuit related to the illegal company sanctions received from the head of the defense industry, the victim company did not have the ability to pay the goods by the due date.

Since it is judged, the deception of the accused can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was the chief director.

D Around May 9, 2015, around Kimpo-si and 2015, concluded a government-funded material purchase contract with the victim company for the construction of urban park E-type materials (hereinafter “instant contract”). The victim company supplied government-funded materials at the time of Kimpo-si according to the instant contract on June 10, 2015. However, D received 547,030,000 won from the Incheon Regional Government Procurement Service to Kimpo-si with the purchase price of the instant E-type contract, and on the same day, paid KRW 26,20,000,000 for the debt owed to K corporation, KRW 20,200 for the new bank, KRW 20,000 for the new bank, KRW 200,000 for the debt owed to J corporation, KRW 200,000 for the new bank, KRW 200,000 for the debt owed to J.