The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding 2,700,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1 As to the misunderstanding of fact - fraud, the actual contractual party that the company of this case purchased from the Defendant is M, and the victim I did not have any damage.

2) On December 12, 2013, the Defendant did not mislead the victim I by notifying the victim I of the details of the debt of the Plaintiff E (hereinafter “instant company”).

3) At the time of entering into a sales contract with the victim I, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit fraud, since he/she had to bear the obligation incurred before December 31, 2013.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the fraud of this case is erroneous in fact.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 2.7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, according to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, if a person who committed an offense without the accusation under Article 156 of the Criminal Act voluntarily surrenders himself/herself prior to the judgment or disciplinary action on the case on which a false fact was reported, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. However, in the lower court, the Defendant denied the offense without the accusation of this case (the offense of Article 1577 of the High Court Decision 2014, the lower court), and led to the confession of the offense without the accusation of this case, and it is evident that the Defendant was prior to the final judgment on the I, M, N, andO that became final and conclusive.

Therefore, according to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Code, the punishment for the defendant is to be mitigated or exempted as necessary. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant asserted that the victim I was not the victim, and the lower court also asserted the same purport, and the lower court’s judgment is the Defendant and the defense counsel during the period of the judgment.