A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles decided to produce and supply the same 8,000 punishment to the G Co., Ltd., and requested a factory in China to produce the same 8,000 punishment, and requested a victim F through D to supply 3,000 punishment to the G Co., Ltd. on the ground that the G Co., Ltd. is insufficient in China's local area. The supply price was planned to be settled after selling the goods through N home shopping.

The defendant received the price of goods from G, etc. to pay the price of the goods, etc., and thought that he would bring it into the Republic of Korea from China, but the Home shopping sales was postponed due to the failure to receive the price of goods from the G, etc. to receive the price of the goods. As a result, the defendant could not pay the price of goods to the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant could not pay the price due to ex post facto circumstances following the Defendant’s request for delivery to the victim. At the time of trading with the victim, the Defendant was normally under business, and accordingly, had the intent or ability to pay the price of the materials to the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of fraud was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, since the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and did not have any intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution in July, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. In the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court held that at the time when the Defendant was supplied by the victim and thereafter, the Defendant had claims in a considerable amount of amount to transaction partners, including G, I, J, and K, but was planning to pay the amount of money collected and take over and import the ruptureer, but the said claim is adequate.