The defendant shall be innocent.

The defendant is the representative director of the Chang Ho Construction Business Co., Ltd., and D is the employee of the above company in charge of field management, material placement, etc.

On March 2013, 2013, the Defendant reported that he would proceed with the construction work for the supply of sets on the ground that E, who had been in the process of the construction work, was closely paying the price, and ordered D to purchase the sets from D.

However, at the time of fact, the above company, which had been operated by the defendant, had no intention or ability to pay the price within the agreed period, even if the company is supplied with the goods from the victim F because it had already been operated in excess of the debt due to the obligation of 3 billion won such as the price of the goods and the bank account obligations.

1. Around March 25, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for goods supply with the said victim by stating that “The Defendant would pay the price for goods up to April 30, 2013, on the face of the week to supply the actual SL100 2,000 to the victim.”

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 6.6 million won from the victim on March 28, 2013, from the victim, the Defendant received 200 million won of the actual egg L1000.

2. On April 8, 2013, the Defendant continuously concluded a contract to supply goods with the victim by stating that “on the face of supplying 4,000 actual SL10 to the victim, the Defendant would pay the price for goods by May 31, 2013,” and received 13.2 million won from the victim on April 9, 2013.

As a result, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was supplied a total amount of KRW 19.8 million by the victim twice in total.

Judgment

1. The fact that the defendant was supplied with goods as stated in the facts charged and did not pay the price of the goods can be acknowledged, but in light of the following circumstances: