The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: “E”, a business entity operated by the Defendant, failed or unpaid to pay value-added tax, health insurance premiums, artificial construction costs, etc. in the second half of the year 2006, and was urged to pay the price for goods from Dae Tech, etc.; it is unclear whether the above business entity’s possibility of recovery of attempted bonds at the time was not clear; it is difficult to predict the possibility and price of sales of such clothing; it is difficult to ascertain how the clothes were sold; and it was actually disposed of; on the other hand, there was a complaint against the Defendant by fraud, etc. from various business entities, including the victim; and on the other hand, it can not be deemed that Eul’s business was poor on the wind; in light of the above, even if it was received from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the price. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was not guilty.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the lower court’s determination that “the Defendant, even if being supplied with the clothing around November 20, 2006, had no intent or ability to pay the price, by deceiving the Victim F to pay the price after the month, and obtained and acquired the clothing equivalent to KRW 68,556,400 in total of the market price by deceiving the Victim F as if he did not have an intent or ability to pay the price.” As to the facts charged of the instant case, ① it appears that the active property, such as the outstanding amount, etc. of the “E” operated by the Defendant at the time of the delivery of the instant clothing, such as the money receivable, etc., and the clothing products, etc. sold or kept in the store and warehouse, was more than the negative property of E, such as debt, overdue payment, delinquent value-added tax, income tax, and four major insurance premium, etc., from the trading company