2. The lower court determined that the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation at the time of receiving the panel from the victimized person.

For the reason that it is difficult to conclude it, the defendant was acquitted.

Examining the evidence of this case, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the defendant could not pay the price for the goods to the victim, who is the subcontractor, because the defendant was unable to receive the price for the panel goods from F, a superior subcontractor.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if the defendant was to manufacture and deliver the goods from the injured party at the time of concluding the contract for manufacturing and delivery with the injured party.

It is difficult to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

The above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as there is no reason.