A. The Defendant had no ability to pay the pertinent price due to economic difficulties even after being supplied with the 4th non-explod Dolod Dolodg and the 2nd Dolod Dolod Dolod (hereinafter “instant machinery”) by the victim. The defect problem of the instant machinery was also due to the fact that the Defendant did not first provide the materials necessary for the manufacture of the machinery, and thus, the Defendant had a criminal intent to obtain fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant about the crime of fraud is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the first instance court's judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is as follows: ① was aware to a certain extent that at the time when the victim J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "I") supplied the instant machinery to C (hereinafter "C") operated by the Defendant; ② the Defendant inspected the instant machinery supplied by I and supplied it to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "K") through the instant machinery; ③ around October 2014, the Minister of Business L, the Defendant, and the KM directors divided the overall talks about the remaining parts of the instant machinery; ② the victim anticipateded to pay the price of the instant machinery as the price of the goods received by the Defendant from K; ④ The Defendant failed to supply the goods from K due to the performance of the instant machinery.