The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal: In light of the following: (a) the process leading up to entering into each contract for the supply of goods in this case between the complainant and the defendant, the stock company (hereinafter “G”) and the circumstances leading up to the conclusion of each contract for the supply of goods in this case; and (b) the complainant, in fact, has concluded a contract for the supply of goods with the defendant, who is a processing company, reliance on the ability to repay the goods in G under the assumption that the goods are supplied to G and the goods are paid from G; and (c) the defendant has a duty to notify the fact that he/she received all the goods from G

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2. The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal is a number of circumstances appropriately explained in the reasoning of the judgment. ① A contract for goods supply was entered into in order on the condition that the goods price is paid in installments between the complainant and the defendant and the defendant, but G did not anticipate the defendant as of April 25, 2012 on the grounds of settlement of accounts, etc.; ② the defendant paid the down payment normally according to the goods supply contract entered into with the complainant; ② the defendant agreed to the contract for goods supply; and the remaining payment date of the balance amount was at least six months (30 days from the date of delivery and inspection of the goods under the contract). Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the complainant notified the above "the fact that the entire goods price is received" or that the defendant bears a contractual obligation to keep the goods price as it is, in light of the terms and conditions of the contract and the freedom of contract under the Civil Act.