The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact that the Defendant, by June 2013, has consistently repaid the unpaid amount of goods, the Defendant did not commit any act to conceal the intent of defraudation by means of increasing the transaction volume on his own account or changing transaction partners, etc. The payment of the price of goods is also made in around May 2012 and around December 2012, the Defendant was raising a considerable amount of income in 2012, and the Defendant paid the price of goods to the victim L and V from May 5, 2012 to June 2013 of the instant facts charged, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the price to the Defendant in full.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. In the part claiming mistake of facts (1) even if the Defendant was supplied with the goods due to the aggravation of credit in the continuous transaction of the goods, the intention or ability to pay the price was faced with a doubtful situation, but recognizing the possibility that it would be impossible to pay the price without concealing such fact, and if the goods were supplied with the goods, the intent to commit fraud is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2840, Aug. 25, 2006). (2) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the Defendant did not own any other property other than one half of the house located in AK, while the Defendant was liable for the debt and the price for the goods exceeding the share price of the said house to the financial institution and the trader, and (ii) the Defendant was established on May 27, 2012 after the total amount of the goods unpaid was over KRW 100,000,000,000.