The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the Defendant obtained cable supply without intent or ability to pay the price, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial for the degree of proof of guilt, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have a conviction that is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2342, Jun. 24, 2005). (b) Examining the following circumstances cited by the judgment of the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant was supplied cables without the intention or ability to pay the price, to the extent that it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

(1) On January 2013, the Defendant supplied the instant cable, entered into a contract for G night lighting facility works using the said cable, and the supplied cable was put into the said cable and completed the construction work on April 30, 2013, and paid KRW 100 million out of the cable price by receiving the price for the said construction work normally.

(2) At the time of delivery of the above cable, the Defendant placed a new contract several times, and continued to receive the payment for the construction work.

(3) On August 2010, the Defendant may give priority to obtaining the remaining construction works when the construction works are resumed with respect to outdoor electrical construction works among those interrupted by J-Creation works.