Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by the defendant at the time.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) from October 2012 to March 2014, the Defendant operated a company called “E” for the purpose of manufacturing the victim D and the automobile LED interior, etc.; (b) took charge of the production of automobile LED indoor products, and fund management; and (c) the victim took charge of inventory of goods and personnel management.

On March 20, 2014, the Defendant concluded that “E” office located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant settled the same trade relationship with the victim, and that “E” office (“E”) concluded that “Although the unit price for private parts supplied by the trading company was 50 won or less, the Defendant supplied 100,000 copies, which are parts necessary for the manufacture of indoors, to the victim, that the unit price for the parts was 25,00,000 won per unit price for the parts, which was 25,00,000 won per unit price, was 25,00,000 won per unit price for private parts.”

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving a victim who was unaware of the unit price of the withdrawn part, received a delivery of the above amount, but the victim filed a lawsuit to confirm the non-existence of an obligation with the Jung-gu District Court around August 27, 2014, which did not lead to an attempted attempt.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: