The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant is actually operating D (Representative E, hereinafter “D”) a clothing manufacturing company in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Section 2 building C.

On May 2016, the Defendant: (a) supplied the raw materials for manufacturing of clothing in D office, to the victim F, who operated the raw materials for manufacturing of clothing (hereinafter “raw materials”) and sold the raw materials, such as hackk, if he/she supplied the raw materials (hereinafter “the raw materials of this case”) and then made a false statement that he/she would make a settlement in cash without any mold on a two-month basis.

However, even if the defendant, at the time, was supplied by the victim and sold the bill of this case after manufacturing the bill of this case, he did not have the intent or ability to timely pay the price of the original bill of this case to the victim only because he was aware of the payment of the existing debt or use it as the company operation expenses.

Around June 30, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was supplied with 309,483,680 won at the market price by the victim, and received from the victim with 146,362 gates of this case (Nadylon) from the victim, and acquired the original unit of this case at a total amount of KRW 74,871,655 won from September 30, 2016, as shown in the attached crime list from September 30, 2016, through the supply of 365,697 gates of this case as shown in the attached crime list.

2. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in the instant case, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant is led. In the transaction of goods, the establishment of fraud by deceptive means shall be determined depending on whether the Defendant had the intent or ability to pay the price of goods to the victim, even though there was no intent or ability to pay the price of goods to the victim as at the time of the transaction. As such, the payment of the price of goods can be made due to changes in