The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who is engaged in the culture business of the former in the newanan-gun B.

On November 20, 2012, the Defendant stated that “A victim C will pay the price for the failure in the face of the spawn with the face of the spawn and the spawn in the supply of the preceding spawn.”

However, there was no intention or ability to pay the price of the failure even if the return was delivered from the injured party.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 50,000 won of the total 16,50,000 won of the market price from the victim.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion was received from the injured party of the previous uniforms as indicated in the facts charged. However, the Defendant was aware that the injured party provided the previous uniforms free of charge in consideration of the relationship with the Defendant and the purpose of publicity with the Defendant.

Therefore, even though the defendant was sufficiently capable of paying the price to the victim, he did not know the price, and he did not deceiving the victim with the intention or ability to pay the price.

3. Whether fraud is established shall be determined at the time of the act of fraud. As such, if a purchaser in a commodity transaction had the intent and ability to pay the price of the goods at the time of the supply of the goods, this is merely a default of civil liability, and criminal fraud is not established, but only a fact that the purchaser failed to fully pay the price after the supply of the goods, and there was a scope of fraud by a purchaser.

It cannot be readily determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516 decided April 28, 2016, etc.). 4.

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by this court is as shown in the facts charged.