The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: the Defendant sent the original and subsidiary materials to Vietnam.

A corporation that produces and supplies clothing in Vietnam has operated a corporation that carries on the business of producing and delivering clothing in Korea.

1. On January 5, 2015, the Defendant was guilty of fraud on December 5, 2015, 2014, at the victim E office located D4 in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant concluded a contract for the supply of disaster uniforms with the Defendant “The Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of disaster uniforms with the F, but the money is necessary for the production of uniforms.

If 100 million won is invested in disaster prevention delivery business, it means that 100 million won of the investment principal and 14 million won of the investment proceeds will be paid within 2 months.

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to return principal and profits even if he received KRW 100 million from the injured party because he did not have entered into a contract with F corporation for disaster prevention delivery with F corporation, and the remitted money was planned to be used as employee's salary.

On January 5, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 100,000 from the damaged party’s false statement, and acquired it through a bank account under the name of the Defendant.

2. On March 24, 2015, the Defendant was guilty of fraud on March 24, 2015, and the victim E’s office located in the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court D4th floor on March 24, 2015, “The supply is delayed and requires money.”

In addition to 70 million won, until April 7, 2015, it stated that the investment principal of KRW 70 million and KRW 74.5 million will be paid by the investment revenue of KRW 4.5 million.

However, there was no fact that the Defendant entered into a contract with F Co., Ltd. for delivery of disaster prevention uniforms with F Co., Ltd., and received KRW 70 million from the injured party, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to return the principal and the profits, and the remitted money was used for customs clearance of other goods.

On March 24, 2015, the Defendant received a remittance of KRW 70 million from the victim to the one bank account under the name of the Defendant on March 24, 2015.

2. Determination

A. Whether the relevant legal doctrine constitutes fraud or not is established.