A. (1) On September 2009, the Defendant: (a) was to be supplied with 2009, the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) with 2009 devices, which are parts of the 200 search devices, from the victim D; and (b) to supply them to G, which is the ordering unit; (c) the damage was caused by the 1st defect of the 200M delayed payment period and supplied; (d) there was a concern for requesting the replacement of the 200M devices in the future from the ordering unit G; and (e) thereafter, the Defendant was to enter into a supply contract with the victim D in 2010 and to manufacture and supply the 200,000 won of the 30,000 won of the 30,000 won of the 20,000 won of the 20,000 won of the 20,000 won of the 20,000.

(2) Around January 2010, the Defendant and the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) entered into an agreement with the victim H on 4 OM and NA 2, and eight supply contracts with NA in February 2010. The victim H gave out the production of Maglaslass among them. The Defendant unilaterally suspended the production of Maglass on Ma around March 2010 and thus the Defendant was unable to secure Maglass from time to time. As such, the Defendant suffered damages, such as returning down down payment, etc. upon cancellation of the contract with R, tin Construction, and Southern Enterprises, which were supplied from the victim H, caused no water to be supplied to the victim H, and caused no water to compensate the victim H for its damages.

(3) Therefore, although the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the supply price to the victims from the beginning, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The allegation of unfair sentencing.