The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that a mistake of fact-finding defendant concludes a clothing supply contract with the victims as stated in the facts charged of this case and receives the payment from the victims.

However, the defendant has been continuously engaged in transactions with victims since several years, and even in the case of this case, the production of goods was made by paying the down payment to the lower factory of China, and it was impossible to supply the goods according to the above contract with the wind to withdraw the money possessed by the defendant to the Chinese violent vessels during the Do.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant did not deceiving the victims, and that there was a criminal intent to acquire by deceit, is unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the Defendant had the intention to commit a crime of fraud, as stated in its reasoning, due to the negligence of the Defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was in a situation in which he is able to pay the price for the transfer contract only if he has already received money from another place at the time of the contract of this case, and it is difficult to view that the defendant was demoted from USD 200,000 among them after receiving the price for the goods from the victims. In light of the above, the court below's decision is acceptable, and so long, it is difficult to view that the fact that the defendant had continuously maintained transactions with the victims was directly affected by the establishment of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case cannot be said to be erroneous.