The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, at the time of receiving the original supply from the injured party, had the intent or ability to process it and deliver it, but only did not process the original body on the wind that the injured party has defaulted, and subsequently sold the original body supplied to G as agreed with the injured party, and then delivered the price to G, the Defendant did not have the intent to acquire the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (eight months 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 of the relevant legal doctrine, has to be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction performance before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions. The criminal intent is not definite intention, but dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). Meanwhile, considering the difference between the method of evaluation of credibility between the first instance court and the appellate court based on the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, considering the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of the further examination of evidence by the time of the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court is solely on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the judgment made by the appellate court, unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial.