A. Defendant 1) In order to purchase a new engine (DV-11), the Defendant had a prior consultation, a contract, etc. with the Vice-President of the K-FF and the engine purchase to purchase a new engine (DV-1), designed and manufactured systems, such as the starting, warning, cooling, cooling, meter board, exhaustr, and pressure, etc., and had been engaged in the U.S. business trip at the victim E’s request. At the victim E’s request, the Defendant made best efforts to purchase the DV-11 engine, but failed to purchase the dV-11 engine with the sales policy of the 200 head office.

Accordingly, the defendant purchased the DaV-11S inevitably, and this fact was well known to the victim E and the J.

After all, the defendant purchased a new engine and did his best to obtain gas certification tests and type approval, but the result is only not sufficient, and the victim E is not taken by deceiving the victim E.

B) With respect to the fraud against the victim G, the Defendant informed the victim G that “the DoV-11 engine was not purchased. DV-1 engine could not be remodeled even after the purchase of the freeboard, and could be viewed as a test with the event engine originally installed in the Guh1280 engine.” The price was returned after settlement, and the Defendant attempted to obtain the exhaust gas certification test and the type approval, but failed to obtain the victim G, and the Defendant did not defraud the money by deceiving the victim G. 2) The Defendant’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) declared by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair assertion)’s sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is “D” to lend and manage construction machinery located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.