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

A. misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant believed the promise of AD to ship pigs on credit when providing security, and purchased 350 pigs from F on credit, such as the facts charged, as in the judgment of the first instance.

Since F was supplied with feed on credit in AD and raised pigs, the actual authority to ship pigs has AD.

However, after the defendant was supplied with pigs from F, AD unilaterally discontinued the supply of pigs on the ground that the defendant had no value as security on the land that he provided as security.

When the supply of pigs was suspended, the Defendant had no choice but to use the price for processing and selling pigs supplied from F to purchase pigs in other places, and the amount receivable increased in the course of continuing such business was not paid to F.

In other words, the defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

B. The grounds of appeal on the sentence (one year of imprisonment) and the judgment of the first instance on the judgment of the lower court of unfair sentencing do not explicitly state the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, when comprehensively examining the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion during the instant pleadings, the first instance judgment also states unfair sentencing.

The punishment sentenced by the second judgment (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

This Court decided to concurrently examine each appeal case against the first and second original judgment. Since each of the offenses of the lower judgment is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower judgment cannot be maintained any more.

In addition, according to the records, the copy, etc. of the indictment of the first instance judgment to AE in the dwelling of the defendant on May 17, 2017.