A. On November 15, 2010, as to the fraud against J, the Defendant made a normal payment of the price for the sled fish supplied by J. M. The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the J to the cedled fish, thereby deceiving it; and (b) there was no conspiracy between M and the Defendant to commit the said fraud; (c) by lending the name of O with regard to the fraud against O, the Defendant provided the vehicle installment to OR to purchase the vehicle after purchasing the vehicle, but did not deliver the said money; and (d) there was no fact that the Defendant acquired the vehicle by fraud.

Even if the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the vehicle from the beginning, it is difficult to O to regard it as the victim of fraud, aside from the fact that the installment financing company considers it as the victim of fraud.

3) At the time of receiving rice from C as to the fraud against C, the Defendant had financial and intent to pay rice price. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the fraud against the first J as to the allegation of mistake of facts, i.e., M, a corporation operated by the Defendant “L” (hereinafter “L”)

The Defendant and L operated the so-called “exploitation enterprise” which was intentionally exempted from the payment of goods by failing to pay the goods after the delivery of the goods. The Defendant and L agreed in advance to discontinue the business of the Company after the lapse of a certain period after dumping and the goods supplied by the supplier are dumped and commercialized.

M was stated as "," and <2, M became aware of the DNA operated by the victim J by coloring the target enterprise via the Internet with the accused, and ordered the salted fish in N currency.

"I have made a statement";