The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s act of receiving the goods in return for promising the payment of the goods constitutes an explicit deception, in light of the financial status of the Defendant at the time of entering into the instant contract for the supply of the goods (hereinafter “D”).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Whether fraud is established through the defraudation of transactional goods should be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to defraud the goods from the victim by making a false statement as if the victim did not have an intent or ability to repay the price of the goods at the time of transaction, even though there is no intention or ability to do so.

Therefore, as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, even though it was difficult for the prosecutor to establish a repayment plan at the time of delivery of the goods, if the goods were supplied, it can be determined that there was a criminal intent to acquire the goods by deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2864, Jun. 27, 2006). However, it cannot be deemed that the goods cannot be repaid due to changes in economic conditions after delivery, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003). In addition, in a case where a transaction conducted in the course of carrying out a project as seen in this case is predicted in advance as a result of the nonperformance of the obligation, and the part of fraud against the operator of the project becomes a problem, the mere fact that the company was predicted to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able