The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant did not have the intention to acquire by deception, and there was no fact that there was no active deception against the victim.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court constituted the sequence 8 to 11 attached to the judgment of the lower court, from 8 to 10 times.

On June 18, 2018, the appellate court divided No. 9 of the judgment of the court below into No. 9 and No. 10 of the list of crimes in the annexed sheet No. 9 of this judgment as of June 18, 2018.

There is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts guilty of criminal facts.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not have the intent and ability to pay for the goods due to excessive cumulative debt, etc. from the time when the first contract for goods transaction was concluded with the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that acquitted the Defendant on the criminal facts Nos. 1 through 7 of the annexed crime list, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In relation to the fraud listed in the annexed list 8 through 9, the establishment of fraud by deception shall be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire goods, etc. from a victim by making a false statement as if the victim would repay the price of supplied goods, even though there is no intent or ability to repay the price of supplied goods as of the time of transaction. Thus, the crime of fraud cannot be deemed as a crime of fraud by making it impossible to repay the price of supplied goods due to changes in economic conditions after delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003). 2) In light of the following circumstances recognized by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient.