The judgment below

Among them, each part of the other crimes (excluding the part of compensation order) except for the part of fraud against victimO.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts (i) fraud with F, the Defendant was actually supplied with F with a iron trial in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract with F, but it is merely a rejection of the receipt of the steel deliberation provided by the Defendant by the F as the F was destroyed by the contract from its customer. As such, even though the Defendant had the intent and ability to deliver the steel trial to F, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendant supplied 150 tons of the steel trial to V and S in accordance with the contract, and thereafter returned 10 million won out of 50 million won received from V as a dispute related to the supply of the steel trial occurred, and thereafter supplied V with 170 tons of the steel trial.

The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged despite the fact that the Defendant had the intent and ability to deliver the iron trial, and the Defendant actually implemented the content of the contract, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (a crime of fraud against victimO: imprisonment with prison labor for three months, and imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. (i) The Defendant, the summary of the facts charged, served as the representative director of the (ju) E established for the purpose of collecting, selling, crushing, crushing, and crushing waste typile-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun.

The Defendant, in light of the economic circumstances, technical skills, and machinery performance of the above company, did not have the capacity to produce 50 tons or more of rubber from waste typology (hereinafter “refrativity”) at least 97% per day. Thus, even if the Defendant received money from the victim F for advance payment from the victim F, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to supply the iron to the victim for at least 50 tons per day, and the machinery in the factory was leased from others rather than the Defendant’s possession.