The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant of mistake of facts is merely not paying the original amount due to the defective part of the original part supplied by the victim, and there was no criminal intent to acquire the original amount by fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in relevant legal principles, 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 confessions. The criminal intent of the crime is not definite intention, but dolusent intent. In particular, the establishment of fraud by deceptive means in the goods transaction relationship should be determined by whether the Defendant had intention to acquire goods from the victim by making a false statement as if he/she would have performed the price of goods, even though he/she had no intent or ability to pay the price of goods to the victim at the time of transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2864, Jun. 27, 2006). The lower court’s judgment and the first instance court’s judgment and the first instance court’s judgment to recognize the payment of KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000 won.