The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant had the intention and ability to pay the oil price to the Defendant at the time of receiving the oil from the injured party, so there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by the Defendant.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the intent of the Defendant’s defraudation can be sufficiently recognized.

In the same purport, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) The Defendant, at an investigative agency, still remains at the level of KRW 35 million, and the Defendant was unable to pay the oil price due to the failure to pay it, and denied the criminal intent of defraudation. However, the investigation results revealed that the Defendant had already paid the construction price to the Defendant at the original office.

Since then, the Defendant did not comply with the request of an investigative agency for appearance and the request for appearance of the court of the original instance, and was detained for all of the crimes of this case on the second trial date of the original trial which was held after detention.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant made a false confession at the court of original instance.

It is difficult to view otherwise, there is no other evidence to suspect the credibility of the above confession, and 2) The Defendant, on January 2017, when he was supplied with oil, did not receive oil payment from the Defendant, thereby suspending the supply of oil, the Defendant would receive construction payment from the original office, and thus, pay the oil payment.

In other words, oil has been supplied continuously.

After that, the Defendant received construction cost of KRW 130 million from the original office on February 5, 2015, but around that time.