The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operated a wholesale and retail business of automobile goods under the trade name of “C”.

On July 2016, the Defendant had a debt equivalent to approximately KRW 200 million, and even if being supplied with the automobile exhausters from the victim D, it was thought that the Defendant would pay the existing debt with the proceeds of sale, and there was no intention or ability to pay the proceeds to the victim.

Nevertheless, around July 12, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If the Defendant would supply the Defendant’s office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, the Defendant would pay the Defendant the amount in cash by August 20, 2016, if he would supply the Defendant’s office located in Dongdaemun-gu to the Defendant’s office.”

On July 20, 2016, the Defendant received from the injured party the amount of 3,000 Bosh Man Man Man Man Man Man Man, and received the additional 3,000 Bosh Man Man Man Man Man 23,40,000 from July 26, 2016, and acquired the amount of Man Man Man 23,40,000 won.

2. Determination

A. In the transaction of goods, the establishment of fraud by deception shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to defraud the goods from the injured party by making a false statement as if the injured party would repay the price of goods to the injured party although there is no intention or ability to repay the price of goods at the time of the transaction. As such, the payment of the price of goods cannot be made due to changes in the economic situation after the delivery.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed a crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003). (b) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the criminal intent to acquire the criminal defendant at the time of transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

- The Defendant has increased the demand for the package air conditioners around July 2016, and this will take precedence over other companies.