The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact that the Defendant, as a misunderstanding of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), supplied at least 13-15 tons of a daily living area, did not meet the absolute requirements for the existence of a contract with the victim for the purchase of goods. After the issuance of the performance guarantee insurance policy, the victim understood it and continued transactions, the Defendant would be issued a performance guarantee insurance policy.

Frauded the damaged person;

shall not be deemed to exist.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was normally traded from February 2, 2015 to April 2015, 2015, which received the advance payment deposit from the injured party, and the trading volume has decreased even thereafter, but continues to have been supplied until November 2015, and the decrease in the supply volume is due to the decrease in the continuous supply price between the injured party and the victim’s decrease in the supply price, etc., the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to supply the living area to the injured party at the time of receiving the advance payment deposit as above at the time of receiving the advance payment deposit.

Therefore, the criminal intent of defraudation shall not be recognized to the defendant.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact-finding and legal principles as to the evasion of compulsory execution 1) misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the legal principles, there is no reason to lend money without any security at the place where the business failure was supported by others, and there is no fact that the above money was returned to S after the expiration of the lease period, the lower court’s determination that recognized the facts based on the S’s statement that lent the above money to the Defendant is unreasonable.

Even if S is deemed to have lent the above money to the Defendant’s husband and wife, once it entered the account under the name of V managed by the Defendant, that money is the subject property of the Defendant’s husband and wife, and as such, the said money is the subject property of the victim’s compulsory execution.