The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged stated that, around May 25, 2014, the Defendant would pay the amount every 30th day of the following month to the staff in charge of the victim B corporation, and that, “If the Defendant supplies C and D, which are the primary gold products necessary for adjacent to the ship, to an enterprise within his/her jurisdiction, he/she will pay the amount.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant did not have any particular income due to the aggravation of financial conditions due to the excessive expansion of business and the poor export of overseas export, and there was a debt equivalent to approximately KRW 1.4 billion in financial institutions. The Defendant received a loan from the second financial institution and was in the situation of settling the bank's capital, the price for goods and personnel expenses, and even if the company received the above goods from the victimized company, there was no room to improve the profit structure, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving a staff member in charge of the victimized company; and (b) was supplied by the victimized company with C and D equivalent to the total market price of KRW 537,187,823 from May 25, 2014 to October 25, 2016; (c) but did not pay the price, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

2. The summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion has been supplied with goods from the victimized company since 2007. Since the company's management conditions have deteriorated, the company's payment of credit amount has not been made. The defendant's deception by deceiving the victimized company about the intent of repayment or ability of repayment does not receive goods.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a transaction conducted in the course of the implementation of the relevant legal doctrine, where the nonperformance of the obligation is predicted and a part of fraud against the corporate manager is at issue, the conclusion that there was an intentional crime of fraud is determined according to the outcome of the occurrence of the occurrence of the crime, only if it was possible to expect that the corporate manager would be able to obtain bankruptcy according to the circumstances because the corporate body was in a poor management situation at the time of the transaction.