The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

1. The Defendant is a person engaged in mechanical manufacturing with the trade name “C”.

On April 201, 201, the Defendant, at the office operated by the Defendant in Daegu Northern-gu D, the Defendant, called “F,” who is an employee of the Victim E Co., Ltd., a logistics handling equipment manufacturer, will purchase the logistics handling equipment.

First of all, the supply of logistics handling equipment will be settled by selling or installing the equipment to another company at the end of the month after supplying or installing it.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, after manufacturing and supplying machinery to G Co., Ltd. around August 16, 2010, the Defendant was in a situation in which promissory notes worth KRW 145 million paid as the price were not settled, and it was unclear whether the Defendant was unable to receive the payment from other clients. On the other hand, the Defendant was responsible for the Defendant’s liability of KRW 70 million for more than 20 trading companies, and was responsible for the Defendant’s personal liability of KRW 30 million, and the employees had financial difficulties to the extent that the amount of wages is not properly paid. Accordingly, there was no intention or ability to settle the payment even if the Defendant was supplied with the logistics handling equipment by the victim company.

Around May 23, 2011, the Defendant, as seen above, received from F a total of KRW 3,080,000 in total of the equipment for dealing with logistics, such as LIGTRACK, owned by the victim company; KRW 1,683,00 in June 11, 201; KRW 6,160,00 in total of LIGHTRACK, etc. on June 23, 2011; KRW 6,160,000 in total; and KRW 220,00 in A/BND S/W on June 24, 201; KRW 36,63,00 in total of the equipment for dealing with logistics on August 4, 2011; KRW 106,000 in total,00 in total; and KRW 406,00 in total,00 in the amount equivalent to KRW 50,00 in total.

2. In light of the facts and circumstances seen below, at the time when the defendant received goods as stated in the facts charged from the victim company, he/she had the criminal intent to acquire the goods by deception.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

In other words, all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor are also based on the evidence.