The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was unable to pay the price of delivered goods of this case due to difficulties in corporate circumstances after March 2018 when the Defendant entered into the instant supply contract with the victim, not deceiving the victim, even though the Defendant did not have the intention or ability to make repayment from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misconception of facts against the defendant.

2. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment and subsequently determine it ex post facto, although there was no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Furthermore, the subjective constituent elements of fraud should be determined by taking into account objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s re-determination before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction, unless the Defendant is led to confession. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a dolusive intention is sufficient.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008, etc.). The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, while explaining the grounds for its judgment in the lower court’s summary below.

The above judgment of the court below is examined closely by comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and according to the result of the order to submit taxation information to the head of the same orchard, the defendant is the victim.