The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the person who is the representative director of the corporation C (hereinafter “C”) located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government B (hereinafter “C”).

On December 5, 2017, the Defendant called the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) to E, the head of the business team of the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) in the office around December 5, 2017, and took an attitude that the Defendant would normally pay the price after two months.

However, at the time of fact, C did not have an intention or ability to pay the amount normally even if it was supplied by the affected company, such as having been unable to conduct a normal business activity in around December 8, 2017, because it was not possible to conduct a normal business activity, and it was not an intention or ability to pay the amount, even if it was supplied by the affected company such as having attempted to apply for corporate rehabilitation.

As such, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving E as above; (b) obtained from the victimized Company an amount equivalent to KRW 3,781,140 on December 5, 2017; (c) amounting to KRW 21,069,840 on December 6, 2017; (d) amounting to KRW 2,679,688 on the Stetracco around December 12, 2017; (e) obtained from the victimized Company an amount equivalent to KRW 17,707,140 on the Stetracco on December 13, 2017; and (e) supplied KRW 21,069,750 on December 14, 2017; and (e) supplied KRW 58,585,5850 on the aggregate of supply of KRW 58,585,58,58,50 on the supply of tetracco on December 14, 2017.

[The purpose of the law that allows the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the time, place, and method of the crime in entering the facts charged is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, the facts charged should be comprehensively stated to the extent that it can distinguish the relevant facts from other facts, and even if the time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not clearly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law that allows the specification of the