The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. At the time when the delivery contract of this case was concluded, the defendant and limited company E bear a large amount of debt.

The Defendant believed that the Defendant would be able to pay the price for supply to the victims by receiving the construction cost from the JJ Co., Ltd. without taking specific methods to pay the price for supply of steel materials to the victims by the agreed payment deadline.

However, the Defendant used to repay the existing loan or borrow new money equivalent to KRW 520 million among the construction price to be received from J Co., Ltd., and the Defendant did not cooperate with the Defendant, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to receive the price of supply directly from J Co., Ltd.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the Defendant had the intention to acquire the victim by deceptiveation at the time of concluding the instant supply contract with the victim.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the Defendant, from March 2016 to July 2016, who operated a limited company E with the steel structure manufacturing chain in Gunsan City D.

On April 15, 2016, the Defendant would transfer to the Defendant the claim amounting to KRW 805,200,000 for the construction cost to be paid by J Co., Ltd. I located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, for the payment of steel products to the Defendant at the H office operated by the Victim G in the Seoul-si, Seoul-si, and the Defendant would transfer to the Defendant the claim amounting to KRW 805,200,000 for the construction cost to be paid by the Defendant on May 31, 2016.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant’s debt was approximately KRW 3.1 billion and the Defendant’s personal debt was about KRW 800 million. On the other hand, there was no particular property or import at the time, and thus there was no intention or ability to pay the price normally even if the Defendant was supplied with steel materials from the injured party.

Defendant 2.