Around April 15, 2014, the Defendant concluded that, at the first office of the Defendant’s actual operation in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant would pay 50% of the purchase price on the 30th day of the next 30th day following the due date, and 50% of the remainder by the 15th day of the next 30th day following the due date, to the J, in the presence of the victim’s proxy staff J, clothes processor K, etc.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if he was supplied with the original amount from the victim.

Around May 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received Section 34 of the spons of KRW 7,285,740 at the market price from the victim; and (c) received KRW 94,247,615 at the total market price of KRW 11 times from around that time to June 9, 2014, as shown in the separate crime list.

2. According to the records, the Defendant is recognized as having entered into a supply contract with F on April 15, 2014 without having stipulated the specific terms and conditions of the contract.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant obtained the original set without the intention or ability to pay the price, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

① The original supply contract, dated April 15, 2014, drafted between I and F with the Defendant’s operation, is the content that F will supply goods. However, it is merely a basic contract to the extent that F will supply future headquarters between the parties by stating the specific contents of the contract, such as name, SPEC, quantity, unit price, amount, and payment period.

(2) The defendant shall conclude a contract for original supply.