In fact, although the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the processing cost properly even if he received processed goods, such as Roman and cattle, from the victim F, such as that the Defendant’s real estate owned by C was provisionally seized by creditors as well as the liabilities of C much more than assets due to aggravation of business performance, etc., he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay the processing cost. On April 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) the head of C’s factory, representing the Defendant, was awarded a subcontract for the production of the Belgium D Co., Ltd. from the Defendant Company C to the Defendant; (b) caused the victim to pay the construction cost within 60 days from the date when the victim delivered the Ro and cattle to C; and (c) the victim did not receive the parts, such as the la and cattle, from April 27, 2012 to August 31, 2012, and did not pay the amount equivalent to 10,68,700 won property profits.

2. As to the above facts charged by the defendant's assertion, the defendant and his defense counsel argued that the defendant did not pay processing expenses to the victim, but they did not pay the construction expenses to the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D") operated by the defendant to C (hereinafter "C") and they did not have any intent to commit fraud.

3. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had ordered the subcontract by deceiving the victim although the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the processing cost properly even if the defendant was supplied with the processed products, such as horses and cattle, etc. from the victim.