Nevertheless, the Defendant was provided with goods or services by deceiving victims as if he/she had an intention or ability to pay the price by using a trust relationship formed through continuous transactional relationship, so the facts charged in the instant case is found guilty, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant: (a) did not commit deception to the victims regarding the method of payment or the ability to pay for E; and (b) in light of the continuous transaction details between E and the victims, the Defendant, regardless of the financial status of E, planned to hold G X-ray to pay the victims with the down payment or the proceeds; and (c) was aware of such circumstances; (d) the Defendant was unable to pay the goods and services due to the wind to escape from the expectation in the above X-ray tender where E had been in force for 15 years or longer; and (e) the Defendant endeavored to normalize the company and to raise money to the victims after E was deprived of the tender; and (e) in light of the circumstances, the Defendant acquired goods or services by deceiving the victims without any intent or ability to pay the price at the time of each of the instant contracts.

On the ground that it is difficult to recognize the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

(c)

A thorough examination of the records of the judgment of this Court.