The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not receive approximately 150 tons of aluminium materials supplied by the victim company to the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Electricity”) on April 18, 201, under the condition that it was used in the quantity in the payment period, the Defendant did not receive a delivery on April 18, 201, under the condition that it was used in the quantity in the payment period, and the victim company did not sufficiently supply aluminium materials, resulting in the termination of the contract from Korea and the failure to pay the price for the goods to the victim.

As such, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, although the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime unless the Defendant makes a confession. The criminal intent is not definite intention but dolusive intention. In particular, the establishment of fraud through deception in the transaction of goods is determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire goods, etc. from the damaged person in spite of the intent or ability to repay the price to the victim as at the time of the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008, etc.). In addition, if a person who receives goods in the transaction of goods did not supply the goods to the other party, if the other party did not supply the goods to the other party as to the price for the goods, and if it was supplied with the goods contrary to the truth, it is established as a crime of fraud by notifying the other party as to the method of preparing the goods (see Supreme Court Decision 20134.5.7.