The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was not aware of the criminal intent of defraudation because the Defendant received the price under the supply contract with the IXS UNS UNS company, and planned to purchase and supply the L CD panel to the victim. However, the Defendant was extremely weak at the time of receiving the instant price from the victim, and the Defendant appears to have consumed all the instant price immediately after receiving the instant price from the victim. In light of the above, the Defendant had the criminal intent of deceptiveation, even if he had the criminal intent.

2. Determination:

A. The establishment of fraud through deception of property should be determined at the time of receiving the relevant property. Thus, if the defendant had the intent and ability to supply the L CD panel when concluding a contract for supply of the L CD panel with the victim and receiving the advance payment, even if it was impossible to supply the said L CD panel due to changes in economic circumstances thereafter, it is merely a non-performance of civil liability, and it cannot be said that a criminal fraud is established.

B. According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, C company operated by the defendant (hereinafter "defendant company") is a company established on April 26, 2007 for the purpose of developing, monitoring, producing, and selling communications products, and it purchased goods from overseas buyers, such as the United States, France, and Germany, and operated them again by the method of supplying them to overseas buyers. On October 5, 2010, the defendant proposed on October 5, 2010 that the 15 L CD panel should be supplied to the victim with 10 and 40 L CD panel if he transfers the goods to the victim. On October 14, 2010, the victim proposed on October 15, 201 that the sum of USD 18,400, 400, 400, 290, 290, 290, 301, 2030.