A. 1) As to the fraud against C, in light of the fact that ① the damage was incurred to C by the agriculture of the “J”, the supplier of the goods, and ② the Defendant returned to C the 30 million won to those who have difficulty in purchasing the goods, etc., the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation of money against C.

2) As to F’s fraud, in light of the fact that (i) the Defendant ordered and paid a TV license equivalent to USD 18,112 to China, in fact after October 12, 2012, which received KRW 12 million from F, the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to obtain money from F, on the grounds that (ii) the Defendant paid KRW 4,00,000 with the transportation charge of the said TV license, container cost, etc.; (iii) the Defendant provided F, who was difficult to purchase a TV panel, with a volume of KRW 80,000,000,000 in the market price as a substitute payment, under the pretext of real payment, KRW 2,00,000,000,000 in the market price as to F.

3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts as to the fraud against the victim C was made in the lower court as to the same purport as the part on the fraud against the victim C among the allegation of mistake of the grounds for appeal.

The court below rejected the defendant's above assertion by determining that the defendant's fraud against the victim C is recognized in full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.