The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fraud of mistake D, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the supply of D's goods and the fraud of D's price in collusion with E and G, but the defendant also knew about D's supply of goods and the fraud. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged (the fraud against the victim D) Defendant and E, F, and G (personal information in the name of the victim) set up a mutual distribution company with the name of "I" No. 112 of the H building in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, so that the first upper part of the H building was 112, and was supplied with the goods such as food to the above company, but did not pay the price for the goods, and

Therefore, the defendant leased the above office of the above company, lent the name of J and K to make preparations for the operation of the above company, and made the business registration of the above company, and E will take charge of disposing of the supplied goods, and F will take charge of loading and unloading of the supplied goods, and G will take charge of ordering goods.

Thus, the defendant, E, F, and G showed the attitude that they would make the victim D to pay the full amount of the normal price by November 12, 2012 to the police officer at early November 201, 2012, and the defendant, E, F, and G were supplied from the victim D with the original decoration Nos. 1,900 ma, the original decoration Nos. 1,9500 ma, and the original decoration Nos. 1,000 won at the plaza of Hanam-si on November 7, 2012. However, even if the goods are supplied as above, there was no intention or ability to pay the price.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with E, F, and G, was accused of the victim D and received property equivalent to KRW 19.5 million from the victim D.

B. The lower court’s judgment is based on the accusation prepared by Q, which seems consistent with this part of the facts charged.