The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, while receiving the furniture from the victim, was unaware of the victim, even though he/she had no intent and ability to pay the price, by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. From around November 1998, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) from F, a household business entity run by the Plaintiff E, a household operated by the Gyeonggi-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si (hereinafter “Seoul-si”); (b) supplied food and other households on credit; and (c) sold the price to pay the household of the victim; (d) however, the method of settlement of the price has been trading in a manner that deducts the amount from the balance of the outstanding amount as much as the amount paid after sales to the household; (b) the Defendant, around November 2009, made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would make the payment of the price for the household well with the previous business, and would demand the Defendant to supply the accumulated outstanding amount without paying it.”

However, in the course of the transaction with the victim, only 2 million won out of the total amount of KRW 93.5 million accumulated until the end of 2006 was paid up to the end of 2006, and it was no longer difficult for the victim to cope with the outstanding amount due to the lack of any property or income other than 89.5 million won, and even if some of the sales proceeds were to be supplied and sold by the victim, there was no intention or ability to properly pay the outstanding amount due to the victim's cost or living cost.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.