The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant for compensation 56,776.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) F, the victim C’s statement, and the existence of a statement of transaction, etc., the over-day transaction in this case is conducted between the victim and the defendant, and the defendant was found to have received an over-day delivery from the victim by making a false statement that “the victim was engaged in a transaction with F, but there is no outstanding amount.” However, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of the price of the goods in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On January 201, the Defendant stated that “E” in the facts charged for the price of the instant goods is “E” located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, 201, that the victim C had a debt relationship between F and the Defendant, and that due to such debt relationship, the Defendant would not supply the victim with an excessive payment, and that the Defendant would not supply the Defendant with an excessive payment, and that “The Defendant would immediately pay the outstanding amount to F but not pay the outstanding amount.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even if he was supplied with the above excessive work by the victim.

The Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim and deceiving him, is the same year from the victim.

3. The same year from around 16.

4. Until December, 12, a total of seven times of the market price was supplied with a set of 71,776,000 won and acquired it by deception.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the instant transaction repeatedly stated that the instant transaction was between the Defendant and himself; (b) in other words, F had the victim first filed a complaint against F with the charge of fraud in relation to the facts charged in this part of the charge that “F had brought the goods by doing business with the victim and the retail; and (c) had no profit.”