2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to sell toyss, etc. even if he did not receive money from the victims because he did not have any intent or ability to sell them.

The Defendant, at around September 11, 2010, issued KRW 4,336,00 from the above date to the Defendant’s national bank account on the same day from the victim F (30 years of age) to the 25th day of the same month by inserting an article to the effect that “D” in the Defendant’s operation of the Spanju-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the Defendant sold to 50% of heavy and toy via the Internet Nene E Caf,” and received KRW 33,500 in total from the above 12 times in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table of the judgment below, from the above 30th day to the 25th day of the same month.

3. The Defendant asserts that, from the court of the court below to the trial, the Defendant could not deliver the goods to the victims because G, an employee of the Defendant, carried ley toyss and fals in toy stores operated by the Defendant, carried out by G, and went away. The Defendant asserts that there was no falsity of deceiving the victims.

As to this, the court below asserted that the defendant was unable to send an alternative call because the time when he received an order from the complainant was immediately prior to the drilling (from September 21, 2010 to September 23, 201). However, the defendant was ordered from the complainant F, etc. on September 11, 201, which was before the date of the drilling, even though the defendant was ordered to do so on September 15, 201, and June 16, 201.