There is no such fact, and there was an intent and ability to pay the price of the goods.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, thereby deceiving the victim with the product totaling KRW 1,263,240, and therefore the defendant's above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

① From May 201 to the court of the court below, the victim heard the Defendant’s oral statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that he would pay the price within two weeks, and supply C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with a product of an Acrypt amounting to KRW 1,263,240. The Defendant had a transaction relationship once or twice, and, in such a case, consistently stated that the settlement should be made within two weeks in one week.

② On October 1, 2014, the Defendant was unable to take the circumstances of C at the time of receiving goods from the injured party in the police investigation, and the operation of the said company was not well-grounded.

was stated.

(3) After delivery of the product to the defendant, the victim continued to request the defendant to pay the price for the product, but the defendant will make a last order.

“The price of the goods was not paid, and C was closed after receiving the goods.”

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.