Therefore, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay the amount of the goods to the victim, and the Defendant merely failed to pay the said amount due to ex post changes in circumstances.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion

Judgment

The lower court duly admitted and examined the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant, from March 2012 to March 2014, leased approximately KRW 35,000 to Ilcheon-si, in which the Defendant invested KRW 6-700 million, and was Dora and Dora and yellow si. In this context, the Defendant continued to have only Dora and Dora had no profit from the yellow si, and only left the enemy. The Defendant was the so-called so-called “prevention against return” due to excessive debt to the people, including their relatives in around 2014, and the Defendant would pay the victim at the time of the instant case after the date of delivery of the price of supplied goods by the import bank, etc.

In full view of the fact that the sales proceeds of the supply bank, which received the delivery, have been consumed by both personnel expenses and expenses, etc., the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the sales proceeds to the victim even if he received the delivery of the import bank from the injured party at the time of the instant case.

Since it is reasonable to see that the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so ordered.