The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant received clothing subsidiary materials from the victim E and sent them to the PTSINKGRMNT (hereinafter “Indonesia company”) and processed the clothing and then supplied them to G companies located in the United States (hereinafter “U.S. company”), and received the payment from the Defendant, the Defendant would pay for processing costs and goods to Indonesia companies.

In order to normally complete these transactions, two months to three months and three months have been required, and the damaged person was well aware of such a transaction structure.

In this regard, there was a defect in the clothing manufactured by Indonesia company during the instant transaction. Accordingly, the Defendant was unable to pay the price for the goods to the victim because it was not properly paid by the U.S. company.

Therefore, at the time of the transaction of this case, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price of the goods.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination:

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The intent of the crime is not a conclusive intention, but a willful negligence is sufficient

In particular, the establishment of fraud through deception in the transaction of goods should be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire the goods from the injured party by making a false statement as if the injured party would repay the price of goods to the injured party although there is no intention or ability to repay the price of goods at the time of the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2864, Jun. 27, 2006, etc.). B. The court below and the appellate court have duly adopted and investigated the price of goods by evidence.