On October 4, 2015, the Defendant ordered the complainant to pay the price by the end of October, 2015, where the location for light is unknown.

However, the defendant did not have any ability or intent to pay the price even if he has received the materials to be returned from the complainant.

As such, on October 4, 2015, the Defendant belonged to the complainants, and owned 20,000 won (per unit 115,000 won), 575,000 won in total (per unit 115,000 won), 580,000 won in total (per unit 290,000 won), 105,000 won in total (per unit 290,000 won per unit), 765,575,000 won in total (including 290,000 won per unit), and 200,000 won in total (including 115,000 won per unit 15,000 won), and 575,000 won in total (including 290,000 won per unit) in total (including 290,500 won in total) in return for 20,500 won in total (per unit 115,000 won).

Judgment

1. There are complaints filed by the injured party as evidence in support of the facts charged in the instant case and statements and trading statements made by the investigative agency and by the investigative agency.

2. In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that, after receiving construction materials from the injured party on credit, the value of the materials as a result of construction payment after receiving construction materials from the injured party, the Defendant’s payment of the material price has been delayed.

3. The Defendant did not pay the material to the victim in the instant case where there is no particular proof as to the fact that the Defendant, even if receiving the material from the damaged person from the beginning, did not have any intent and ability to pay the material, and received the material from the injured person (this is a matter of non-performance of obligation).