A. As to the fraud of the victim V by mistake of fact, the Defendant was running a business on the side, such as tapes and shields supplied by the victim.

BC supplied goods to the victim and received the goods immediately, but BC did not pay the goods to the victim due to his own death after receiving the goods. As to the fraud of the victim W, the Defendant paid the down payment amounting to KRW 49 million to the victim, and the remainder was operated with the trade name called AO at the time of the occurrence of the remainder.

Although it was planned to receive KRW 140,000,000 from the outstanding amount due to the delivery to BD, it was not paid by BD due to the failure of BD to pay the amount of the goods. As to the fraud against AB, the Defendant operated BE in Daejeon.

Although the Defendant received three copies of the check from NN as the price for the goods, the check was not settled and the settlement was not made. As to the fraud against the victim AF partnership corporation, the Defendant paid 7.5 million won out of the price for the red molds powder to the victim, and the remaining balance was not paid because the delivery contract was terminated with the other transaction parties due to the defect in the product, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victims and did not have the intention of deception.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud against the victim V, W, AB, and AF Partnership corporations, thereby erroneous determination that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court, which sentenced two years to imprisonment, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court to determine the assertion of misunderstanding of facts.