The defendant shall be innocent.

The defendant is the representative of C Co., Ltd.

Around December 27, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract for supplying goods to be supplied with the “Water Distribution Team and MCC” equivalent to KRW 115,00,000,000, at the construction site of “F” performed by the Victim D Co., Ltd. from the Victim Co., Ltd. until January 30, 2012, the Defendant agreed that the Defendant would supply the goods to the victim after interim inspection, and around March 9, 2012, the Defendant paid the goods after the interim inspection. Around March 2012, the Defendant increased the price of the goods to KRW 120,000,000, and entered into a contract for supplying goods to delay until March 30, 2012.

Since then, on March 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the G, a regular manager of the victim company, to the effect that “The Defendant would not receive the construction cost by telephone from the (ju) G Co., Ltd., and would not receive money after the examination.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had already consumed the construction cost of KRW 110 million from the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at which the Defendant had already received a considerable portion of the construction cost that had already been paid in advance, and the construction cost that had already been paid did not reach the amount equivalent to the price of the goods. Even if the construction cost was paid in addition from the (i) Dokco, the Defendant was thought to have been used as the accumulated overdue wages, etc. to the employees of the Co., Ltd.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was supplied by the victim with water distribution teams and MCC equivalent to KRW 120 million around March 19, 2012, around March 19, 2012.

Judgment

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant received the instant “water distribution team and “CC” from the victim company (hereinafter “the instant goods”), and did not pay the price. However, the instant goods as a storage issue by the victim company.