The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. 1) At the time of reporting on August 20, 2016 by G to the Defendant, G was not included in the subject of reporting that the size of the transaction with the victim was approximately KRW 5 million.

Since the Defendant received a report from G around September 10, 2016 to September 20, 2016, and became the first one around September 20, 2016, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud.

2) The Defendant had a claim of KRW 250 million around September 2016, which was held by around KRW 250,000,000,000. However, due to the fact that the Defendant filed a sudden lawsuit at the existing customer, the Defendant was not able to repay to the victim due to the light of the cash flow around September 20, 2016, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant in the facts charged is a person running food distribution stores with the trade name “D” in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CBB 230, and the victim E is a person running agricultural products distribution business with the trade name “F”.

On July 18, 2016, the Defendant would pay the Franchis to I, a Franchise through D Private Court of Justice on July 18, 2016.

“Along with the knowledge of the fact that the main trading company was to change to F, it was supplied to F with agricultural products equivalent to KRW 61,112,610 in total by the same 37 times as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table from August 29, 2016, as well as from the fact that the main trading company was to know of the fact that it was to change to F, it was supplied with agricultural products equivalent to KRW 1,087,00,000, such as Brazil, from the damaged party.

However, in fact, the defendant was a personal debt of 30 million won, and there was no intention or ability to pay the normal price even if he was supplied with agricultural products from the injured party, because the transaction company was changed to F that operated by the injured party while he was urged to pay the purchase price of 250 million won due to the failure to pay the purchase price of 200 million won to H which was supplied with agricultural products prior to the transaction with the injured party.

This is the defendant.