Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

A. In relation to the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment 2.2. [Fraud of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] of the lower judgment, the Defendant was issued by the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) with an electronic bill of KRW 1 billion at par value (hereinafter “instant bill”) and decided to lend money to the damaged company. In fact, the Defendant requested for the discount of the instant bill to HH and K, etc., but the instant bill was requested to be discounted, but the Defendant did not have the intent to do so, thereby causing the damage. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be recognized as having committed the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts constituting the crime 2.3., and the lower court, based on the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, (i) the Defendant was suffering from lack of funds at the time when the instant bill was delivered by the victimized company; (ii) the Defendant was able to pay KRW 500 million as if he was paid in cash immediately after the receipt of the instant bill even though there was no clear method to cashize it; and (iii) the Defendant was forced to contact immediately after the issuance of the instant bill by the victimized company; and (iv) the Defendant was using the instant bill in installments, and made full efforts to pay cash