In the case of fraud the content of which is the taking-off of property, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself infringes on the victim's property, which constitutes a crime of fraud, and a considerable amount of consideration has been paid.

shall not cause any damage to the entire property of the victim.

Even if the crime of fraud does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud, even if the price has been partially paid, the acquired amount shall not be the difference between the value of the property given from the victim and the value of the property received.

(Supreme Court Decision 200Do1899 delivered on July 7, 2000). In this case, the amount of the Defendant’s defraudation is the 4,293,687,543 won supplied by the victim company.

However, the prosecutor, however, deducted the amount of 2,390,000,000 won paid by the defendant to the victim company from the amount of defraudation, and prosecuted the object by viewing it as the corresponding property profit, not the crate which does not receive the price of the goods.

This public prosecutor's indictment is recognized as having no substantial disadvantage in exercising the defendant's right of defense in favor of the defendant.

The defendant was a person who operated a company C, a corporation in Gyeonggi-si, B.

On September 2015, the Defendant, at the above C around September 2015, presented a proposal to the effect that “C” in this case, the Defendant would pay the price of the material without a mold later than a week by supplying the materials used for concrete typing construction work at the construction site, as the steel plate in the shape of the water used for the floor structure, with the defect in credit transaction within the limit of 300 million won from E running the victim D D Company.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt of KRW 2 billion against another person due to a default on payment in 2014, and settled promissory notes issued in the past.