The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. 1) Claim 1) Although there was intent and ability to pay the steel materials at the time of receiving the steel materials from the injured party, there was no intention to commit fraud since the price was not paid due to external circumstances, such as retirement of many employees.

2) The Defendant, as in ordinary transaction of other goods, only agreed to pay the price of the goods within 60 days after the completion of the construction, upon receipt of the construction cost.

The injured party did not deceiving the injured party.

B. 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment as to the criminal intent of defraudation, and the lower court rejected this assertion in detail by stating in the “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” of the judgment.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules that the judgment of evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was against the logical and empirical rules.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment regarding the time of payment of goods, the Defendant would pay the price of goods within 60 days.

It is recognized that the damaged person was deceiving.

G, the representative of the victim C, consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, that “the defendant would supply steel materials within 60 days from the main day of the supply of them.”

The defendant would receive money from the Public Procurement Service after the lapse of 60 days after delivery.

The date was stated in the lower court’s ruling (No. 45 of the evidence record, No. 71, 72, 76, 78 of the trial record). H, a major shareholder of the Defendant E, a Co., Ltd., was the court of the lower judgment.