The defendant is a person who operates F Co., Ltd., a company engaged in textile distribution and processing in E at his Government-si, and the victim AG is a person who operates AH, a fiber processing company.

On November 1, 2016, the Defendant requested the victim to change the original Belgium from the F Office of the F Office of the F Company.

However, at the time, the defendant was not able to pay the original processing cost to other companies, and there was no intention or ability to pay the original processing cost properly due to the amount of debt of 40 million won.

Nevertheless, as above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim process the fiber, from November 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, and did not pay KRW 53,038,000 for the original processing cost.

In this respect, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness AG and AI;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Statement by the prosecution and the police officers concerning AG;

1. The defendant, the statement of entry and withdrawal, and the statement of transactions, delivered the ITY source instead of the cost of original processing (i.e., keeping the ITY source in the victim’s operating company on or around December 2016, and subsequently, preparing a certificate of transfer (Evidence No. 14 pages) on January 11, 2017, the defendant finally transferred the victim’s ownership to the victim). The defendant asserts that he/she has no criminal intent to commit fraud because he/she completed the settlement of the cost of original processing.

According to each of the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the defendant had been aware of the fact that the defendant had already been able to pay the original processing cost to the victim in view of the financial situation of the F Co., Ltd. F, and the fact that the victim could not pay the original processing cost. In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was in charge of the original processing as a criminal intent of defraudation, and eventually, the original processing cost agreed upon by the victim is paid to the victim.