In fact, even if the victim D requested the gold processing, there was no intention or ability to pay the gold processing cost.

Nevertheless, on December 6, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would make a settlement of the gold processing cost of KRW 700,000 by the end of the following month on the face of the high seas” to the victim in the case of the Defendant’s operation in the Gyeonggi City E, which was operated by the Defendant.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the complainant to process a gold punishment, failed to pay KRW 700,000,000 of the gold processing amount, thereby acquiring pecuniary gains equivalent to the above amount, and by acquiring financial gains without paying a total of KRW 40,10,000,000,000 for eight times until January 9, 2015.

2. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.

The Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant contracted a gold processing as stated in the summary of the facts charged in the judgment of the Defendant and failed to pay the processing cost, but on the other hand, the Defendant continued to have earned income while running the above business, paid the price to the Customer even at the time of the instant gold processing contract, and did not delay the payment of principal and interest on the loan.

In light of the above facts, even if the defendant failed to pay the above gold processing costs, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the above amount at the time of the contract.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.