The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) can be evaluated as deceiving the victim through G, which is one’s own employee, and even though dolusent awareness of the fact that the Defendant was unable to pay the price even after being supplied with electric wires from the victim with the status of continuous aggravation of management, it is deemed that the Defendant was provided with the instant electric wire, and the criminal intent of defraudation is recognized by the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the following grounds, on the ground that the instant facts charged are insufficient to prove a crime.

1) The burden of proving the facts constituting a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003). Meanwhile, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should be determined by taking into account such objective circumstances as the financial history, environment, details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of performing transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). Each police protocol on the defendant's interrogation of goods, consistent with the facts charged, is inadmissible as long as the defendant denies the contents of this court agreement with GF as the defendant did not deny the contents of the facts charged.