The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant provided the instant K apartment with security value equivalent to KRW 18,000,000, around the time when he was supplied to Toluene from the injured party, and thus, the Defendant had the ability to pay the Toluene price.

must be viewed.

2) Even if a crime of fraud is recognized, the victim was apportioned KRW 93,793,360 in a voluntary auction procedure for real estate established with respect to K apartment in the instant case, and the victim was reimbursed KRW 48,168,864 through the relevant civil litigation (a joint district court 2013 revoked 86149). Accordingly, a crime of fraud is established only for the amount of KRW 58,792,880 (=200,75,75,104 – (93,793,360 KRW 48,168,864) that is the amount of outstanding reimbursement.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. As to the assertion that fraud is not established by providing sufficient collateral, the court below rejected the assertion by the defendant in detail, on the ground that this part of the appeal is identical to the ground for appeal.

The decision of the court below is in accordance with the empirical rule that ① the victim sold Toluene supplied by the defendant to other companies and provided a large quantity of Toluene in belief that the defendant would pay the amount up to the following month. If Toluene supplied by the defendant is discarded due to the repayment of the substitute for the existing obligation, the victim would not have any means to pay the amount to the victim, and if the victim knew of such circumstances, he would not supply Toluene notwithstanding the provision of reasonable security. ② The defendant did not have a specific plan on how to pay the amount to the victim after disposing of Toluene as a substitute, and the victim actually did not sell the Toluene to the third company.