However, there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if the defendant is supplied by the complainant because the management of the above company was proper at the time and the debt reaches 200 million won.

Nevertheless, on May 15, 2016, the Defendant deceivings the complainant as above, and then acquired money of KRW 4,039,750 from the complainants, KRW 6,512,00, and KRW 1,588,950, in total, KRW 12,140,70, around June 18, 2016, and KRW 12,58,950, around July 20, 2016.

Although the defendant is the operator, E actually performed the supply-related work.

There is no speech about the terms of delivery and complainants or delivered through E.

Judgment

There is no dispute between the defendant company and the complainant as to the facts of the contact between the defendant company and the complainant, the aggravation of the financial situation of the defendant company and the unpaid amount.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the prosecutor has proved the criminal intent of deception or deception of the defendant.

The prosecutor asserts that the complainant's statement and the defendant's employees' statement are proved by the statements.

In doing so, the complainants (i) did not specifically explain the details of the transaction in the court, and the statement is not consistent (such as the supply and settlement conditions, the date and time of the transaction failure, the object of the transaction failure, the details of the demand for the payment, etc.). Therefore, the complainants’ statement cannot be found guilty on the ground that it

② The E belonging to the Defendant Company also identified the Defendant Company in the court, and introduced it to the Defendant, while introducing it directly to the Defendant, such as transaction terms and conditions.