The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) received each of the funds borrowed from the instant facts charged and the bill discount; and (b) did not have any intent to commit fraud at the time when the equipment rent due was extended (hereinafter “at the time of the instant case”); (c) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby having committed fraud

The decision was determined.

B. The defendant guilty for an unfair sentencing

Even if the court below's sentence (eight months of imprisonment) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence admitted by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court, even if the Defendant did so at the time of the instant case, was guilty of fraud.

The decision is just and acceptable in its conclusion, and there is no error of mistake in fact.

1) At the time of the instant case, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) Defendant F (hereinafter “F”) was performing a structural construction among the electric source housing construction works, which was ordered from electric source houses owned by the Defendant at the time of the instant case; (b) was able to receive KRW 800 million from the first construction cost upon completion of the structural construction; (c) it was difficult for the Defendant to discover and execute the unexpected base floor at the site of the construction; (b) there was a track record of having been any other performance or expected receipt in addition to the foregoing electric source housing construction works at the time of the instant case; (c) the Defendant appears to have used funds borrowed from the instant charges and discounted bills; and (d) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s wife at the time of the instant case, J and F, a considerable number of real estate located in the name of

2) However, the lower court, on the grounds that the Defendant’s intentional act was revealed in recognizing the Defendant’s fraud, assumed that the Defendant and F, at the time of the instant case, bear approximately KRW 3.69 billion in total, including (i) the loan of KRW 2.2 billion; (ii) the loan of KRW 80 million; and (iii) the loan of KRW 690 million in total; and (iv) the wage of KRW 690 million in total; and (iv) the Defendant, J, and F.