The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) was a person operating D who produces and sells shipbuilding machinery at the time of Kimhae-si; (c) was liable to settle steel products in a short period, such as costs for purchasing machinery at the time of mid-to-mid July 2015; (d) was up to KRW 120 million, and even if the Defendant purchased steel products on credit from others, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay for the amount of the goods on credit; (c) notwithstanding the fact that he/she had no intent or ability to pay the amount of the goods on credit, on July 15, 2015, the Defendant deceptioned that “if the steel products are supplied on credit, the Defendant would pay the amount of the steel products in cash within this title from the complainant to July 15, 2015.”

7. From March 28, 200 to March 28, 200, the Defendant acquired steel materials equivalent to KRW 10,400,962 from the above D to the Defendant and acquired them by fraud.

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the accused, as stated in the facts charged, deception of the complainant or deception of the accused, had been committed by the accused.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① A person who ordered steel materials supply (hereinafter “the instant transaction”) to the complainant is H as the actual operator of D, and the Defendant did not participate in the instant transaction and operation thereof.

② In the course of the instant transaction, the complainant knew H as the president of the D, and did not have any contact with the Defendant during the instant transaction.

③ As the complainant was unable to receive the price, he thought H as the Defendant without knowledge of the name of H, and filed the instant complaint against the Defendant, a representative under the name of D.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, they are acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.