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 representative director of the (ju)C established for the purpose of indoor construction business, etc., and the Defendant is a construction business operator who was contracted out of around August 2015 to “F Remodeling” (D) and extension business (E) located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and E, and the victim H is a person who is engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as office-use and office-use furniture, in the name of “J” in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul.

On January 13, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement that “If the Defendant supplies the victim with the “F” construction site located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, it would pay the price within one month if the Defendant supplied the victim with the “F” construction site located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.”

However, the Defendant was not able to pay wages and retirement allowances of employees due to the shortage of funds at the time. A total of KRW 513 million was delinquent in national taxes. Under the circumstances where the outstanding amount payable to various subcontractors in relation to the “F” remodeling and extension works exceeds the total amount of KRW 700 million, the Defendant used the payment for the construction work that was paid at various construction sites in the form of “ir return prevention,” and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the payment to the victim within the agreed period (one month from the delivery date) even if the household is supplied by the injured party.

The Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim and by deceiving the victim, received the supply of the household equivalent to KRW 97 million from the victim on February 20, 2016, which is the sum of KRW 97 million.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, process of transaction performance, relationship with the victim, etc. insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. On the other hand, the recognition of guilt is so far as there is no reasonable doubt by the judge.