The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 introduced a market for “Finland” to the victim, received the same money as indicated in Article 1 of the facts charged as the advance payment for expenses and rewards from the advance payment for the Defendant. Defendant 1 said that the victim was to produce “Finland” as indicated in paragraph 3 of the facts charged under the status of receiving an order from Korea Forest Industries, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty, even though there was no criminal intent for defraudation.

2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have the ability to supply Fings to the Defendant, in view of the following: (a) under the circumstances in which the Defendant did not seek a seller, the Defendant forged a letter of origin as provided in paragraph 2 of the facts charged in order to deceiving the victim as if he had a performance; and (b) thereafter, failed to deliver fings to the Defendant, the Defendant did not have the ability to supply it.

It is recognized that the criminal intent of defraudation is recognized, since the money has been received from the damaged person in the same situation.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the facts charged No. 3, the defendant was merely merely the documents to be seen as having received the estimate of the documents under No. 3 of the facts charged, and such statement was also made to the defendant.

The facts stated, (2) It can be recognized that the Defendant was not a normally ordered order after sending the above documents, and that the Defendant was not a normally ordered order, and thus the production of Fin will not be made. Thus, the documents in the name of Hanchi Industries, which the Defendant shown to the victim, are not a regular order order letter.