The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the complainant of the facts charged in this case, even though the defendant, although he had no intention or ability to supply polychemicals to the complainant I, by deceiving the complainant, thereby deceiving them, and by deceiving them, by fraud, USD 400,425.

2. Determination

A. On February 2, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement on the charge of the instant charge that “The Defendant would supply electronic wastes, such as polydecocon, which is the raw material of solar cells, to the Chinese complainant through G and H, at the “F office” office operated by the Defendant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.”

However, even if receiving money from the complainant, only plans to gain profits from personal use or securing electronic wastes with the said money and sell them in other places have no intention to supply electronic wastes to the complainant.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the complainant, received USD 40,425 on March 4, 2008 from the complainant to the national bank account under the name of the Defendant’s wife, and acquired USD 400,425 on six occasions from around that time to April 18, 2008, as shown in the attached crime list of the lower judgment.

B. The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and found the fact that the Defendant did not supply poly-mixeds according to the agreement even after the Defendant received USD 400,425 from the complainants, but did not supply poly-mixeds. However, the lower court attempted to delay the supply of poly-mixeds or supply them to other business parties with the intention to obtain or reduce any loss due to the breadth or decrease in international prices of poly-mixeds.