A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) Fraud against the victim K: The Defendant did not have deceiving the victim K, nor did he/she have the intent to commit fraud; Provided, That he/she did not fully repay the borrowed money due to changes in economic circumstances after borrowing money.

2) Each fraud aiding and abetting Co., Ltd.: The Defendant did not have any intention to aid and abetting the defraudion of goods in return for the delivery of the above check to the victim AY, BF, and BH at the time of issuing the check in the name of the said company to AV, and therefore, there was no intention to aid and abetting the defraudation of goods at the time of issuing the check in the name of the said company.

3) Fraud against the victim BS: The defendant received original processed products from the victim BS, and in return, issued a note issued by the issuer CH or the administrator of the dispute resolution committee, but did not pay the price for the failure to pay the outstanding bills.

However, the defendant did not receive original processed products by deceiving the victim BS, and did not have the intention of fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

According to Article 32 (2) of the Criminal Code, the punishment of accessories is provided that the punishment of accessories is mitigated than that of principals, and the punishment of accessories is a reason for the requisite mitigation.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of aiding and abetting fraud among the facts charged in the instant case pursuant to Articles 347 and 32(1) of the Criminal Act, and did not provide necessary mitigation for each crime of aiding and abetting fraud under Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act when determining the applicable sentences.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to apply the necessary provision for reduction of punishment to a aiding and abetting crime, thereby making the scope of punishment differs (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1504, Jan. 29, 2014). 3. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake as to

(a)a victim;