The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor: The prosecutor: the lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor (two years and six months) is too unhued and unjust.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not have the intention of deception, and there is no fact that the Defendant had committed deception. The victims are aware of the Defendant’s credit status and economic situation, and have anticipated or could have anticipated risks to future impossibility of repayment, and the supply of goods for their own interest is not the supply of the goods due to deception, but the supply of the goods in error. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the defendant's subjective constituent elements of fraud 1) To the extent that the defendant does not make a confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is bound to be determined by comprehensively taking account of 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. The criminal intent is not definite intention but dolusive intent. In particular, whether fraud is established by deceptiveation in the goods transaction relationship should be determined by whether the defendant had the intention to acquire goods, etc. from the victim by deceiving him/her as if he/she did not have the intent or ability to repay the price to the victim as at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008) in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, the defendant, without the intention or ability of payment, by deceiving the

Therefore, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit. From around 2010 to around Daejeon, the Defendant engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as agricultural products, in the name of “D” on the building B and the first floor of Daejeon, and the location of the above D location in 2015 as its head office, “Co., Ltd. E”, a company selling kimchi, etc.