The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the cost of the goods at the time of receiving the industrial safety products from the victims.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affected the Defendant’s exercise of right to defense by arbitrarily eliminating part of the facts charged without any changes in indictment.

(c)

The punishment (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant and the defense counsel alleged to the effect that they had the intent and ability to pay the price to the Defendant at the time of receiving industrial safety products from the victims, but comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price to the Defendant at the time of receiving the said products from the victims:

For the reason that it is judged that the defendant was guilty of facts charged.

(i)An intensive order was not issued and the good was not paid during the period of no longer than 60 per cent of the amount of transactions for the immediately preceding one year with the victims.

B. The goods traded by the Defendant and the victims are mainly safety goods in the construction site, and safety goods are expected to be concentrated in the beginning stage of the construction work. However, the time when the Defendant concentrated on the above goods is when the order for the safety goods was made after November, and the order for the safety goods is relatively small.

Article 28(1) of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code No. 2010, Oct. 1, 2014") stipulates that the Defendant received a request from N to hold a large number of orders for safety supplies, and thus, the Defendant received a request from N to hold a large number of orders for safety supplies.