The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the 2017 Highest 3716 fraud, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges on this part of the facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, nor was he had the intention to repay and had the ability to repay, and thus, did not have the intention to acquire by deception. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting

B. As to the punishment sentenced by the court below (the defendant and the prosecutor), the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable for the prosecutor as it is too unfasible to the punishment sentenced by the court below (two and half years of imprisonment).

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

(a) If a loan or supply of goods has been made and maintained in a continuous business relationship, it has become impossible to discharge its obligations on account of temporary cash-raising, etc.;

the result of this, there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from a person who uses or receives the goods only.

It should not be readily concluded, however, if it is found that there is a very doubtful circumstance that the person has already been aware of his/her ability to repay debts with excessive debts accumulated, and even if it is found that the person borrowed money or used the goods for the purpose of repaying the existing obligations with the concealment of such fact, he/she had the intent to commit fraud.

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the duly admitted and investigated evidence, the fact that the Defendant acquired the instant signals by receiving the supply thereof from the injured person, while recognizing that the Defendant could not repay the price of the goods at the time of receiving the instant signals by the due date, can be acknowledged in view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

Ultimately, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

① The Defendant entered into the instant subcontract with the victim on March 5, 2016 to conclude the instant subcontract for the manufacture of faith. From around April 5, 2016 to June 1, 2016.