The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not have made an ordinary payment of the price for clothes even though the Defendant agreed to pay the price for clothes immediately every time the instant clothing is supplied by the victim; (b) the Defendant raised that the Defendant was a self-concepte around April 2, 2008 after all the instant clothing was supplied by the victim; (c) the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the goods asserted as defective without returning or keeping them to the victim; and (d) the Defendant discontinued contact with the victim after February 2, 2009; (c) in light of the circumstances, the Defendant could be deemed to have been supplied with the instant clothing from the victim without the intent to pay the clothes; (d) however, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

2. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, there was a statement in D's investigative agency to the effect that "the defendant would pay the clothes when he supplies the clothing, and would sell it in the United States and pay some (10% to 15%) of the proceeds therefrom, but there was a statement in D's investigative agency to the effect that "the contact was cut down without paying the proceeds normally even if he sold or disposed of the clothing supplied," and there was a partial statement in the court of the court below. On the contrary, if D's sending the clothes from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance, "the defendant was supplied with the clothing from D's agency to the court of the first instance", the defendant was supplied with the clothing because it was impossible to sell the clothing normally due to the defect in the clothing supplied, and thus, it increased the cost of storage of clothing, etc., and even if D's defect was sold, it would have caused considerable damages by selling the clothing at low prices.