The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

With respect to “Supplementary Statement of Reasons for Appeal” (No. 13, 2016) and “Supplementary Statement of Reasons for Appeal” (No. 8, 2016) submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal, it shall be determined within the scope of supplement to the grounds for appeal.

The Defendant’s fraud against the FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) was committed by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the interest payment at the time of being supplied with the interest rate from the F, operated by B during the period from March 2014 to May of the same year.

In addition, the defendant could recognize the possibility of nonperformance at the time.

Even if the defendant believed that such a situation can be avoided, and made every effort to implement the situation.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

The defendant and B have traded a large number of old lines for several years, and around the end of 2012, 4.4 billion won of the outstanding amount receivable receivable at the end of 2012, and at the time B demanded collateral for the outstanding amount, the defendant had already offered his factory and other assets as collateral to the bank, etc., and the size of the outstanding amount receivable at F has continuously increased and reached 5 billion won around March 2014.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the relationship between the Defendant and B before and after the instant case, B was well aware of the credit standing of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) operated by the Defendant around March 2014.

As a result, the risk of future default or impossibility of repayment was predicted or could be anticipated at least.

Therefore, there was a fraudulent act by the Defendant regarding the supply of the above old vessel.

There is no fact that B did not cause mistake at the end of the defendant, and furthermore, B did not decide on the supply of the old vessel by deceiving the defendant, and eventually there is no causal relationship as well as deception or mistake itself.

Even the defendant.