However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price even if he is supplied with the goods from the victim because of economic situation such as there is a debt equivalent to KRW 80 million at the time.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained Makaflas C460 boxes equivalent to the total amount of 2,08,000 won from the victim company and acquired them by deception.

2. Determination

A. On August 2010, the Defendant asserted that, in trading with the victim company for the first time, the Defendant merely did not pay the price for the goods due to a default on February 201, 201 and did not have any intent and ability to pay the price for the goods from the beginning, on the wind that the business becomes difficult due to unreasonable investment, etc. while selling the goods after having agreed to pay the price for the goods.

B. The business employee E of the victim company and the business employee F of the victim company stated that the settlement conditions are determined by the business employee, and there is no evidence that the settlement conditions were immediately or at the end of the month. The above E did not memory all the face of the defendant as well as the transaction details or settlement conditions of this case, and if it was immediately supplied or at the end of the month, it would be possible to memory the contents of this case. If so, there is no evidence to deem that there was difficulty in operating the office or economic situation of the defendant around August 2010 when the goods of this case were supplied (the debt amounting to KRW 80,000,000 as stated in the facts of prosecution). The defendant did not know that there was no evidence to support that the defendant's office operation or economic situation was difficult (the debt amounting to KRW 80,000,000, as stated in the facts of prosecution).