The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant only demanded the settlement of the price to the customer two times with the passbook because the operating fund for the factory operation was required, and did not have the intention of defraudation.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, even if not, on the one hand.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud to determine the mistake of facts, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions. The criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to be dolusent intention

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant delivered the passbook to receive the price from the Defendant’s trader to guarantee the payment of the goods manufactured by a metal scrap to the victim, i.e., the Defendant delivered the passbook to the victim for the purpose of securing the payment of the goods manufactured by a metal scrap, ii) the victim did not transfer funds necessary for G operation, unlike the promise, to the Defendant, to the Defendant, in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

Even if the defendant did not notify the victim of the change of the settlement passbook for the supply of goods without notifying him/her of the change of the settlement passbook for the supply of goods, and if the victim knew of the fact that the defendant notified the transaction enterprise of the change of the settlement passbook for the supply of goods without any indication, the defendant would not be required to supply the goods unless it is guaranteed by any other means, and the defendant could be recognized that he/she acquired the goods by deceiving the victim as shown in the facts charged in this case, and the defendant's intent to acquire them is also recognized.