The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to mislead the misunderstanding of facts or postpone the performance of obligation, the Defendant issued to the victim G a letter of payment of non-repaid promissory notes or non-authorized electronic bills.

In light of the transaction practices between the defendant and the victim, it is difficult to view that the defendant suffered economic loss because there is little possibility that the victim had forced execution during the grace period, and the defendant also cannot be deemed to have suffered economic loss except for the exemption from demanding the performance of obligation. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts of the charge or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances duly admitted and examined by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court recognized that the Defendant acquired property benefits for which the payment of the remaining amount of face value is postponed by deducting discount interest from the amount of discount from the promissory note, etc. issued by deceiving the victim, etc., by delivering a letter of exchange for payment of unpaid promissory notes or an electronic bill of exchange without authority (hereinafter referred to as “contri

1. The Defendant, while fully aware of the fact that it was a defaulted bill, delivered it to the victim as if it were a normal bill, and also delivered a written statement of receipt of an electronic bill with the phrase “cash storage” as if the Defendant had legitimate authority. In light of the fact that it is difficult for the Defendant to believe that there was a consistent statement of the victim that he did not receive any notification from the Defendant and that there was a change in the Defendant’s investigative agency to the effect that he knew of the fact that he did not go against a promissory note