A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the purpose of the police officer around February 2013 is to make sure of the facts charged.

A. Fact-finding (around February 201, 201, the Defendant: (i) around November 5, 201, around the time of the establishment of E, lent a bill from the injured party to use it at a discount; and (ii) traded with the payment of the previous bill at a discounted discount from the injured party upon the maturity; (iii) around February 2013, the Defendant was issued a promissory note (hereinafter “former Promissory Notes”) with a face value of KRW 72,05,00 (hereinafter “former Promissory Notes”) with a face value of KRW 74,80,00 for the settlement of the previous bill (hereinafter “former Promissory Notes”). In fact, the Defendant paid the previous bill at a discounted rate of the Promissory Notes.

Furthermore, around February 2013, the Defendant’s debt amount to the victim was equivalent to KRW 151,220,000 in total, including the amount of goods payment liability of KRW 79,170,000 in total and the amount of money of KRW 72,50,00 in previous bills, and as seen earlier, the delivery of the Promissory Notes was intended to use for the settlement of the previous Promissory Notes and was de facto for the extension of the maturity of the existing Promissory Notes. In light of the above, the Defendant presented a repayment plan for KRW 350,000 in this part of the facts charged, and said, there was no fact of deceiving the victim by lending the Promissory Notes for the payment of KRW 350,000 to the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant did not have any criminal intent of deceptiveation, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged,

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around February 2013, at the office of G Co., Ltd. (after change of name E; hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) located in Asan-si (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), the Defendant Co., Ltd. did not have the ability to purchase materials with its own funds with a relationship of KRW 5 million with the actual capital of KRW 5 million.