Considering that the complainants who are directly traded with K and not via the Defendant after the instant case receive goods payment normally, it is inappropriate to mention the dispute between the Defendant and the complainants in the transactional relationship between the Defendant and K. It is clear that the Defendant attempted to extend only the date without the intention to pay the goods to the complainants.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in the relevant legal doctrine, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions, unless the Defendant is led to a confession. In the relation of goods transaction, the establishment of fraud by defraudation shall be determined based on whether the victim had the intent or ability to pay the price of goods to the victim, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price of goods at the time of the transaction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7481 Decided November 24, 2005).B.

Judgment

It is recognized that the defendant has failed to pay the price for the part supplied by the complainant at the due date.

However, even if the defendant bears civil liability for non-performance of obligation against the complainants, it cannot be deemed that criminal fraud is established, and in order to constitute fraud, the defendant's act should have the criminal intent of defraudation at the time of transaction in order to constitute fraud.

In this regard, the lower court shall take account of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning.