The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On December 15, 2014, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant, who operates a street light manufacturing chain B and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and who calls to F, a cargo transport broker, at the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building and E-B office, for a cargo transport broker, to “C, which is another place of business, shall pay the price by January 15, 2015 when the director ends.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant transport contract”). However, in fact, there was no intention or ability to pay the transport cost.

The Defendant, by deceiving the complainant, had the complainant transport B materials, equipment, etc. until January 2015, and did not pay KRW 3,465,00.

2. Whether fraud is established through the deception of traded goods is determined by whether the victim had the intent to acquire the goods from the victim by making a false statement as if the victim would pay the price of the goods, although there is no intent or ability to pay the price of the goods at the time of the transaction. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the crime of fraud cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of fraud by making it impossible to pay the price of the goods temporarily after the delivery due

(2) The Majority Opinion argues that the Defendant’s conviction is guilty of a crime under the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003; 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003; 202Do5265, Apr. 20, 200).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6659, May 10, 2012). In a loan transaction for consumption conducted in the course of business execution, the nonperformance of obligations is predicted in advance.