Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The defendant alleged that the defendant supplied cosmetics to the victims under a continuous transaction relationship and delayed the supply of goods due to reasons not attributable to himself/herself, and did not have the intention to acquire money by deceiving the victims from the beginning of the contract, but there was an error of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of defraudation of the whole transaction including the normally performed part.

The argument is asserted.

B. There is no new objective reason to affect the formation of documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and in the absence of reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of documentary evidence of the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of documentary evidence in the trial process of this court.

In addition, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, on the grounds that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal, and on the “determination of the defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” of the judgment, the court below rejected the above assertion.

There is no reasonable circumstance to deem that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was against the logical and empirical rules.

The lower court that convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

The judgment of the court below does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

2...