Nevertheless, as the Defendant had no problem in the payment of the price, it is clear that the criminal intent of defraudation is also a crime of fraud, inasmuch as the Defendant deceiving the Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) and was supplied with the goods.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Whether the crime of fraud is established through the defraudation of transactional goods is determined by whether the victim had the intent to acquire the goods from the damaged person by making a false statement as if the victim did not have an intent or ability to repay the price of supplied goods at the time of transaction. As such, it is impossible to repay the price of delivered goods after the delivery due to changes in economic conditions, etc.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003, etc.). In the course of a transaction conducted in the course of the execution of the project, where the failure to pay the debt is predicted in advance, and the nature of fraud with respect to the operator of the project becomes a problem, it can be deemed as bankruptcy depending on the circumstances, because the operator was in a state of poor management at the time of the transaction.

Only if it was predicted that there was a willful negligence in fraud immediately.

It is the same as determining the gender of a crime by the result of the occurrence, and it is not consistent with the actual economic and social situation. Therefore, even if a corporate management manager suffers from difficulties in raising funds and causes bankruptcy, if he/she intends to continue to make efforts to continue to exist, it is necessary for the business.