The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 2014, if the Defendant, by mistake of fact, supplies the victim with a single flap to the Public Procurement Service by manufacturing a single flap box, he/she shall immediately receive the price from the Public Procurement Service and compensate for the difference between the unit price of the existing estimate and the unit price.

“At the time of accusation, there was an intent and ability to pay the full amount of money for the gambling.”

In spite of this, there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the defendant.

In light of the above, the court below which found the guilty guilty of fraud has erred by mistake.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) The facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged in the instant case’s determination by the lower court are indicated as “E” in the written indictment operated by the Defendant in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. on March 3, 2014, but it is obvious that this is a clerical error of “J”.

In the company office, the defendant stated that the defendant made the above remarks to F, but according to G and F's legal statement, the defendant seems to have made the above remarks to G other than F.

Along with telephone calls, “The Public Procurement Service will proceed with the supply of one-line sprinks at the Public Procurement Service, to supply one-line sprinks by making a bid,” and submitted a quotation (unit price of KRW 287,480,000) received from the injured party to the Public Procurement Service to the Public Procurement Service for winning the bid.

However, the above written estimate is that the victim estimated the unit price for the production of the general single-pam stuff because the defendant did not know the victim of the strength of the off-line stuff as required by the Public Procurement Service. If the victim manufactures the off-line stuff as required by the Public Procurement Service, then the victim attempted to waive the contract.

Accordingly, the Defendant called the above F by telephone at the above office around July 2014 and awarded the award.