The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are not provided with goods by concluding a supply contract with the criminal intent to acquire the price for the goods of the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and mistake of mistake.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. ① The defendant, while performing construction work with necessary facilities from multiple companies while being supplied with the construction work, the price of the supplied goods to the company that entered into the supply contract at the beginning and middle of the construction work, despite the increase of the raw materials price, the price of the supplied goods to the company that entered into the supply contract at the beginning of the construction work has already been insufficient since the time of the contract with the victim, and accordingly, the payment of the supplied goods to the company that participated in the construction was to be paid to the victim. As above, the difference in the price of the supplied goods to the victim was expected to be paid after the settlement with the Sejong Comprehensive Construction as the contractor at the time of the completion of the construction work (Form 82 of the investigation record). ② The defendant had not been accurately informed to the victim at the time of the contract with the victim (Article 83 of the investigation record).