The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant was supplied with parts necessary for automation equipment (hereinafter “the instant parts”) by the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) from January 16, 2016 to April 11, 2016; (b) the Defendant did not deception the victim company; and (c) the Defendant had the intent and ability to settle the price at the time of receiving the instant parts from the victim Co., Ltd.; and (d) thus, the Defendant cannot be recognized as a criminal intent by deception.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charge by recognizing the criminal intent of deception and deception, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, 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 transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. Therefore, the crime of fraud is also established by willful negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009). Meanwhile, in the case of borrowing of money or supply of goods which have been continuously formed and maintained in a continuous business relationship, it is impossible to perform the obligation on account of temporary fund-raising, etc.

the result of this, there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from a person who uses or receives the goods only.

It should not be readily concluded, however, if it is found that there is a very doubtful circumstance that the person has already been aware of his/her ability to repay debts with excessive debts accumulated, and even if it is found that the person borrowed money or used the goods for the purpose of repaying the existing obligations with the concealment of such fact, he/she had the intent to commit fraud.

We can see (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2588 delivered on January 15, 1993, etc.). B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant raised objection from the victim company.