The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant in the facts charged is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) in Kim Sea C.

On January 2013, the Defendant told the victim E to the effect that “The Defendant would repay the steel products to the victim into one month, including the steel products that had not been paid before the continuous supply of steel products,” at the office of the instant company.

However, the instant company had a large amount of debt to the customer due to continued business losses, etc., and was unable to pay wages and retirement allowances to the employees of the said company. On February 8, 2013, the instant company received 30,448,069 won from Busan C&T from the said company and received 30,48,069 won from Busan C&T and made it difficult for the victim to fully repay his/her debt to the victim due to his/her credit against D&T, even if the victim continued to supply steel products, there was no intent or ability to pay the transferred debt and the subsequent payments for steel products.

As such, the Defendant was supplied with steel materials of KRW 44,025,465 from January 3, 2013 to January 31, 2013.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to determine the profit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). The establishment of fraud through the defraudation of transactional goods is determined by whether there was an intention to acquire the goods from the victim by means of deception, even though there is no intent or ability to repay the price of the goods to the defendant as at the time of the transaction.