A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles did not state to the effect that the victim “if the victim bears customs clearance expenses, etc., the Defendant would look at the victim at the price supplied by H.”

The Defendant merely stated that “the Defendant was supplied with the difference from H and sold it again to the victim, but it was lower than retail prices supplied to other persons, and the Defendant would sell at the price received from H all kinds of expenses and profits of the Defendant, which added the Defendant’s profits.”

Therefore, even though the defendant was not guilty of deceiving the victim, the defendant by deceiving the victim, unlike the facts charged in this case, acquired the money in the name of the next purchase.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which found the guilty guilty of fraud is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, we examine the judgment of misunderstanding of facts and the legal principles, and comprehensively examine the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, as stated in the facts charged in this case, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case and received a total of 610,946,720 won for the next payment. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

① The injured party consistently from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court’s trial, and the Defendant continued to drink the victim’s vehicle due to lack of body in the future, and whether it would be good for the Defendant to receive wholesale rather than to sell it at retail.

내가 딸에게 뭘 붙여서 팔겠느냐

any interest that the Plaintiff said that the Plaintiff would transfer to Taiwan’s H the price received from it without any benefit.

statement;