1. The judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

The Defendant is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). In fact, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price in a normal manner even if he received steel materials due to a shortage of operating funds, and, through employees G around November 27, 2011, he would pay the price of the materials after completing the construction to the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”).

“Falsely speaking,” the parts were supplied by the injured party from around that time to February 27, 2012, and were not paid KRW 100,733,979 out of the price, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

B. The lower court convicted the Defendant Company of the facts charged of this case on the ground that: (a) the Defendant Company stated that E was not well aware of the financial status of the Defendant Company at the time of this case, and that it was anticipated that the Defendant Company would pay the material price to the victim Company as the construction cost received from the H church; and (b) it is difficult to obtain the material price anticipated that it would normally not receive the

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. In a case where the injured party was aware of the Defendant’s financial standing and could have predicted or anticipated the risk of delay in repayment or impossibility of repayment, barring special circumstances, such as the Defendant’s false statement of material facts that could have decided whether to make a decision on whether to conduct a transaction, such as the intent of repayment, changed ability, transaction terms, etc., the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s financial standing, and there was an intention to commit fraud.

In addition, there is no obligation in transactions conducted in the course of performing business (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016).