The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts about fraud) is established in a crime of fraud, regardless of the intention or ability to pay back, if the Defendant was to prepare a book by borrowing or stealing the name of the customer, and received the book from the victimized company believed to be a normal order by exercising that right.

In addition, in light of the economic situation of the defendant, there was no ability to repay to the defendant at the time of each contract for purchase of books.

Nevertheless, the court below held that even if the defendant was unable to pay the price after the book transfer, the defendant was merely a default of civil liability due to changes in the economic situation of the defendant, and the defendant was aware of the entire book transfer by deceiving the damaged company even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the price.

On the ground that it is difficult to see that the facts charged in this case were guilty, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous as a misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s summary of the judgment: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated; (b) the Defendant was in charge of the position of the director of the branch office of the victimized company around May 2008 when working as a learning site teacher of the victimized company; (c) the victimized company urged the director of the branch office of the victimized company including the Defendant to sell books; (b) the victimized company was urged the director of the branch office of the victimized company to sell books; (c) the Defendant, who received performance pressure, borrowed the name of the customer from around 2010 to increase sales performance; (c) the Defendant purchased books from the victimized company by stealing the customer’s family name; and (d) the Defendant tried to sell books purchased to the consumers by again selling them; but (d) the Defendant was unable to pay part of the purchase price to the victimized company as it was either received from the purchaser or resaleed at a discounted price in the process of resale; and (d) the Defendant continued to have been selling the damaged company by the aforementioned method until August 7, 2015.