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

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment by the Changwon District Court on January 9, 2008 for the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc., and was released on May 20, 2010 during the execution of the sentence in the first prison for the Gyeongbukbuk District Court on May 20, 201 and the parole period passed on August 21, 2010, and the Defendant is the representative of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

On February 2, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the price every month if he supplies steel necessary for the production of Creat,” to E companies that are suppliers of building materials, such as steel materials, and victims G who operate F (State).”

However, in the process of taking over an additional factory at the time, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the above amount every month even if he was supplied with steel materials from the victim, because the financial situation was not good, such as the amount of bank loans worth KRW 2 billion, the amount of the above company’s financial obligation to pay KRW 300 million, and the amount of the customer’s unpaid obligation to pay KRW 3-40 million, and even if he received the construction payment from the original company, he did not have any intent or ability to pay the said amount every month.

Around February 7, 2013, the Defendant supplied steel materials equivalent to KRW 112,328,330,00 from around 30 until May 3, 2013, such as being supplied with steel materials of KRW 17,876,560 from the victim, and acquired them by defrauding them from around 30 times in total.

2. The Defendant denies the charges to the effect that he did not have any criminal intent to acquire by deception at the time.

The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, the process of execution of transaction, etc.

On the other hand, the mere fact that the obligation was not fulfilled in the course of continuous transaction is that the obligation was not fulfilled.