On May 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would allow the Victim E to settle the payment every day every week, on the front day, at the office of D Company operated by the Defendant in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul.”

However, at the time of fact, the defendant had a debt of approximately KRW 300 million, and there was no intention or ability to pay the cost of selling the clothing supplied by the injured party at his own discretion, and there was no intention or ability to pay the cost of processing properly.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) failed to pay KRW 16,885,90 on six occasions from June 1, 2017 to August 24, 2017; and (c) failed to pay KRW 31,885,90 in the market price; and (d) thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the said amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of suspect A's ruling on the same kind of power, etc.), sentence of judgment, etc.;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion in the statement of transaction details, copies of payment receipts, recording records, and written recommendations for implementation

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant did not pay the cost of the voluntary processing is not a civil obligation and there was no intention to commit fraud.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable, since the defendant's intent to acquire the defendant is sufficiently recognized.

(1) At the time of commencement of transaction with the victim, the Defendant had a debt in excess of 300 million won (Evidence No. 64 pages), and one motor vehicle for the property under the name of the Defendant was a full charge.

② Even though the Defendant, from March 14, 2013 to August 26, 2013, prepares a written agreement with the payment of KRW 114,781,697, around November 14, 2013, with respect to the original amount supplied by F from around March 2013, the Defendant is subject to compulsory execution by nonperformance of the agreement, and is not paying the price up to the present day.

(3)