A. In fact, since the victim was aware of the relationship between the B and C Co., Ltd. and the financial situation of the above two companies, including the fact that B Co., Ltd filed an application for corporate rehabilitation, the victim was engaged in each construction as stated in the judgment of the court below in accordance with the continuous transaction with C Co., Ltd., and at the time there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud by the Defendant.

B. Even if the facts charged in the judgment of the court below are found guilty, the punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant argued the same purport in the court below, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion and convicted him of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, which are known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

The Defendant did not properly notify the victim of the financial status of C Co., Ltd. at the time of concluding each contract with the victim for interior works as stated in the lower judgment.

Although Defendant received the full payment of the construction cost from a franchisor related to each of the above interior works, he used it as employees’ benefits, office operating expenses, etc.

If the injured party was aware of the fact about the financial situation of C Co., Ltd. at the time, he did not take any measures to secure the interior work cost and did not take any measures as stated in the judgment of the court below.

On the other hand, the defendant submitted.