However, the defendant did not pay KRW 60,000,000, which is a part of the original cost that was previously supplied by the victim, and even if there was no particular transaction details and import at that time, there was no intention or ability to pay the said cost even if it was supplied with the fiber from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received from the victim the fiber of USD 32,996 ($ 34,000,000) equivalent to that of USD 32,99.

2. The Defendant alleged that he received a fiber from the victim and attempted to pay the price. However, the Defendant was unable to pay the price for the original part to the victim because it was not paid by the transaction partner due to defective defects in the fiber original part which was supplied later among the transactions with the victim. As such, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

In particular, it argues that USD 32,966 of the original cost released on July 12, 2013 of the facts charged in the instant case was paid in full among the trade of the victims.

3. Determination

A. According to the records, the current status of the textile original transaction between the Defendant and the injured party is as shown in the separate sheet on the current status of the transaction. The textile original transaction of the instant facts charged in the instant case is a transaction equivalent to USD 32,966 of the seasonal goods released on June 19, 2013, which was part of the transaction on June 19, 2013.

On the other hand, the Defendant, after July 12, 2013, after July 12, 2013, after the date of the first shipment, around 19,985 (attached Form No. 19,985) and (2) after August 8, 2013, which was the date of the shipment of the remainder of the original unit, from August 23, 2013 to August 23, 2013, and USD 39,985 (W) around September 5, 2013, to the victim.