The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of the "E" located D at Si interest.

The defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price even if he/she has subcontracted the production of the gold shape.

Nevertheless, the defendant from January 23, 2015 to the same year.

5. By the end of 18.18., contact with the victim F for the “G” operated by the victim F in the above place and, if the product was manufactured and supplied, the price would be paid within 2 months.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received monetary punishment from the injured party; and (c) did not pay KRW 25,651,000,000, the amount of such punishment.

2. Determination

A. Criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial must be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge shall admit the guilty with probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 Delivered on December 24, 2002). Whether criminal fraud is established through the deception of transactional goods shall be determined by the intention of acquiring goods from the damaged party by means of deception, even though there is no intent or ability to pay the price of goods to the injured party as at the time of the transaction, regardless of the intention or ability to pay the price of goods to the injured party as at the time of the transaction. As such, it is impossible to pay the price of goods in a lump sum due to changes in economic conditions after the delivery.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed a fraud (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265 delivered on January 24, 2003). B. Domination, taking into account the following circumstances into account by the Defendant, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant intended to acquire the price by fraud at the time of entering into the said subcontract contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

It is insufficient to conclude otherwise.