The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In the misunderstanding of facts, the defendant had the intent and ability to pay the golf at the time of being supplied with golf products from the victim, and there was no intention of deception.

From around June 7, 2008 to June 7, 2012, the Defendant continuously maintained golf category sales business and settled the price of bills to the creditors, including the victims, while maintaining the sales business of golf category E (hereinafter “E”), which is a company selling the golf category operated by the Defendant. Since the Non-payment of E on June 7, 2012, the Defendant did not have an intent to obtain unlawful profits from the Defendant, in light of the fact that the amount of sales bonds to the creditors, including the victims, was approximately KRW 400 million, KRW 40 billion, the cost of inventory assets in storage in the logistics warehouse, KRW 10 billion, the retail price base of KRW 10 billion, KRW 9.8 billion, the cost of inventory assets in storage in each agency, and KRW 24.2 billion, the retail price base of KRW 24.2 billion.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention of mistake of mistake.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant was aware from the victim that the Defendant had no intent or ability to pay the price at the time when he was supplied with golf products worth KRW 929,719,820, a total market price of five times from September 25, 201 to February 25, 2012, as shown in the annexed list of crimes in the lower judgment, and that there was an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention of mistake of facts concerning deception as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant

The evidence No. 7 of the submission shall be written.