The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud among the facts charged in this case, the defendant had a debt at the time of being supplied with the instant clothing. However, as to the embezzlement among the facts charged in this case, the defendant believed to be able to pay the price of goods to the victim, etc. with the profits that will be earned by continuously acquiring goods from the victim or the subcontractor, and there was no intention to commit fraud, and there was no intention to commit fraud. 2) As to the embezzlement among the facts charged in this case, the contract for the transfer and takeover of the claim between the defendant and the victim was made formally for the purpose of showing to the subcontractor. Since there was an implied agreement between the defendant and the victim that the victim would not exercise his right based on the above contract, the premium and the lease deposit received by the defendant is owned by the defendant, and therefore, the defendant was not in the status of keeping the above premium and the deposit for the victim.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the custodian of another’s property in embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. B. In light of all the sentencing conditions of the instant case on unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (one month of imprisonment is too unlimited and unfair

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the fraud, the Defendant agreed to be supplied with the Victim E’s Staff F in credit with the victim E, on September 17, 2012, with the Defendant’s monthly rent of KRW 1.7 million in the “D” store operated by the Defendant at the time of September 17, 2012, was in arrears in several months, and at the time, the Defendant’s obligation was to pay KRW 8 million per month as the loan interest amounting to KRW 120 million, and the sales of the said store considerably decreased due to economic depression.